User talk:Oknazevad: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 245: Line 245:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of years of productive input. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of years of productive input. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|}
|}
Users Buster7 and {{User:7&6=thirteen|7&6=thirteen}} submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
Users Buster7 and 7&6=thirteen submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
:An active part of the Wikipedia community since August 2004, User Oknazevad is a diverse, consistent and productive contributor to many spheres of the Wiki. His actions and activity at [[List of current champions in WWE]] and [[Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]] has been fundamental in the broad based growth of the encyclopedia. He is also interested in articles about rail transport. He has edited over 19,000 pages, uses the edit summary 95% of the time and has 60000 edits with 77% in article space. This speaks to a focused editor hard at work, always willing to give good advice and move a discussion toward resolution. Not an admin; just a quiet no-drama [[WP:wikignome]].
:An active part of the Wikipedia community since August 2004, User Oknazevad is a diverse, consistent and productive contributor to many spheres of the Wiki. His actions and activity at [[List of current champions in WWE]] and [[Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]] has been fundamental in the broad based growth of the encyclopedia. He is also interested in articles about rail transport. He has edited over 19,000 pages, uses the edit summary 95% of the time and has 60000 edits with 77% in article space. This speaks to a focused editor hard at work, always willing to give good advice and move a discussion toward resolution. Not an admin; just a quiet no-drama [[WP:wikignome]].
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Revision as of 23:48, 29 October 2017

New comments, questions and concerns go on the bottom of this page. Please use the "New section" tab above if you have a new topic! If you post here I will respond here; other interested parties may want to follow the conversation, and it's rude to force them to jump back and forth. Similarly, if I post to your talk page, please respond there. Don't bother with talkback templates, I watchlist all pages as needed.

Archives: 2004–2009, 2010, January–June 2011, July–December 2011, January–June 2012, July–December 2012, January–June 2013, July–December 2013, January–June 2014, July–December 2014, January–June 2015, July–December 2015, January–June 2016, July–December 2016, January–June 2017

Hi there.

Just to let you know that your edit summary of "Insignificant appearance" in this edit is incorrect - the Rat King in question was a major plot arc throughout the end of Book 2, and during book 3 of the series.

However, you were ultimately correct to remove the statement because it's mentioned in more detail in a previous paragraph, so was a duplication:

In Alan Moore and Ian Gibson's comic book series The Ballad of Halo Jones, the Rat King was a weapon of war, a super-intelligent collective of five rats with entwined tails who were able to communicate via a computer terminal.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Central

Appreciate your revision, but where else does Metro-North use station codes? Would you say that "GCT" is more a common abbreviation rather than an official code? C16SH (speak up) 13:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears on Metro-North tickets, which makes it a station code by any significant definition. oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but my recent ticket from New Haven just abbreviated that stop as "NEW HVN". Maybe the real question we should be asking is what determines it to be a station "code" as opposed to just an abbreviation for spacial purposes on a small piece of paper. Maybe it's pesky and unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but just my two cents...C16SH (speak up) 22:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GFW

Just to let you know, TCM10 did a cut-and-paste move of Impact Wrestling to Global Force Wrestling (which he also renamed from Global Force Wrestling (2014-2017)). I reverted the C&P, but the name still stands. Would you mind moving it back? I popped in for a few seconds but can't do it at the moment. JTP (talkcontribs) 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. He should just be indefinitely blocked. He's made a total mess of all of this repeatedly, despite numerous warnings. And he's still the guy who vandalized my user page when I previously told him to stop. He needs to go, as he has demonstrated a lack of competence and ability to work collaboratively. oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pierogi

Editting the article solely to put "Polish" before "Ukranian" is just as problematic. If you want to complain about another editor's edit warring, tale it up with them or admins. In the meantime, your edit was itself POV, pure and simple. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS.
If you actually look at the edit history of the article, all my initial edit was was part of a rolling back of a POV-pushing editor's many non-neutral edits. I frankly don't care about he nationalistic pissing contest. To me pierogi are just a fast and tasty lunch. But I do care about NPOV, and abusive editing. In short, my sole edit to the page before your revert was to revert an edit that was part of a pattern of abuse. There was no reason to revert my restoration of the prior status of the article.
And the admins are well aware of the editor; he has already been given a series of warnings leading to a temporary block. oknazevad (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious four years!

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is well above the non-free guideline for size, it should be 457x219. At that size it's still very recognisable as the original. If you insist on not allowing a reduction, then we will have to go to WP:FFD. I tagged it for a manual reduction to allow other users to try different reductions and make a decision on the possible minimum size (I hadn't at that time tried a reduction in PhotoShop). Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looses too much detail at that size. I understand that there's a balance between being too detailed and not enough, and I think the current size strikes that balance. As the page notes, there's no firm guideline and it's a qualitative judgement. It's still less than 0.2 megapixels, so we're not talking about an image that is clearly excessive. And threatening deletion of an image with a valid FUR is not cool. oknazevad (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:TNA Heavyweight Championship.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TNA Heavyweight Championship.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stand alone films

I think it's a well deserving category and should be applied to numerous films that are being adapted to this type of film making. Numerous sources support this category, not just for Star Wars, but films set in large franchises overall.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. The misuse of "standalone" to refer to entries of larger franchises is WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEOLOGISM. And it is an absolute misuse, as a film that is a prequel, sequel or spinoff is not self-contained, and not a standalone film. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is specifically a prequel. It does not stand on its own. The term is misapplied, and should not be the basis of a category. oknazevad (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stand-alone in the sense that watching or not watching it is not necessary to understand the saga film. Another thing is that the characters and plots do not re-appear. Take for example The X-Files. They had mythology episodes and stand alone episodes that had no effect on the plot episodes. Neither has to be watched to understand the other. And the sources do define it as a stand alone film but I have little time to press on this for now.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's just backwards. If the film requires other works to understand, it is not stand alone regardless of whether or not other works require seeing the film. The work itself must be self-contained and not need other works, not be unneeded to understand another work. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's something that should be discussed on the appropriate discussion board, but I don't have time for those debates. With my upcoming schedule, I'm down to limited editing for now.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Cwf97 edited that category. Perhaps he can also leave a comment and we can decide where to later discuss it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

Per WP:PROD, "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was confusing it with speedy deletion tags. oknazevad (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might have been what happened, as I've had trouble keeping them straight myself. I had to double-check the guidelines to be sure you weren't right. It's easy enough to confuse any of WP's guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake. For some reason I thought the entry was a claim of a new movie. Meters (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S'all good. Ideally, I'd copy the reference from the Gumby article over, but I didn't have time at the time. oknazevad (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article, Julia Meade (character), in the Mission: Impossible (film series), at least, give me back the draft, so I can re-create it in the future. Right now, you may think it not deserve to be an article, but we don't know what happened in the future.

It's still in the edit history, as I didn't delete it, just replaced it with a redirect. oknazevad (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mashhad Metro Line 2

Hi there. from Feb 2017 first phase of operation of line 2 was started with 8 kilometers length and 6 station. From Yesterday another station was added. so right now Mashhad has 32 kilometers under operation with 31 stations in 2 lines. last year (2016) more than 38.5 million passenger traveled by line 1. about sources: http://www.urbanrail.net/as/ir/mash/mashhad.htm http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/metros/mashhad-urban-railway-line-2-inaugurated.html?channel=525 and there are many more. please email me at [email protected] if you have any comments or need more information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakestary1363 (talkcontribs) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good statistics. But I'm not sure what you want me to do with them. I've only ever made one edit to the Mashhad Metro article, and the regular editors at the List of metro systems article would have no problem with them. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Lottery

Hi Oknazevad,

Nice to meet you. I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team and currently on a project to eliminate duplicates of the word 'the'. Some are straightforward duplicates, others are because 'the' gets duplicated on both sides of a wikilink. It's almost always improper English to keep both the's when using a phrase with 'the' right before a noun with 'the.' For example, in America we sing The Star-Spangled Banner, not the The Star-Spangled Banner.

I saw your use–mention distinction as the explanation for reverting my edit, and read it, but it does not apply to this situation. You can also try saying the sentence out loud. Even though spoken English gets much more leeway than written English, the double 'the' is difficult to even say in this context and adds nothing to the meaning.

I didn't mean to change the article again without first discussing it, but it came up in my 'the the' search, and I quickly changed it. Then I realized that it looked familiar from a few days ago and I went to the article history. However, I'm still certain that one 'the' is grammatically correct in this instance.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. But I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Because what is actually being said here is that the words "The Big Game" were taken out. In such a case, you need both to make it clear that the phrase is what's being discussed as a single object not what the actual words were. That said it's easy to avoid by rewording the sentence, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street list

Oknazevad, re: this edit [1]: As you probably already know, a Facebook post isn't a reliable source. You see, I'm a traditionalist in regards to sources, so I believe that if an assertion can't be supported, then it shouldn't be included, even if it's probably true. This is especially true in regards to articles about Sesame Street, which I call "The Show," because so many editors have added content without reliable sources to these articles through the years, sometimes only on the basis that they remember it back when they were regular viewers as very young children. The cool thing about the internet is that if something's true, it'll eventually be supported by a reliable source. All we have to do is be patient and wait, and add it at that time, but not before. Remember, this is a FL, so it needs to fulfill a higher standard.

That being said, I suspect that I'm probably new to you, even though I'm an experienced editor. I took a break for about 2 years, but I'm back because my RL schedule opened up and I've always loved editing for WP. I'm responsible for most of the higher-quality WP articles about The Show. There's never been enough editors committed to improving articles about Sesame Street, so I appreciate your interest. I hope we can collaborate more in the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under other circumstances I'd agree with you, and hope that a better source presents itself in the future. But, that said, Facebook posts from verified accounts (noted by the checkmark icon next to the person's name) are valid and reliable primary sources, which we can use in a pinch when nothing else is available. For now it'll have to do, until something better comes along. oknazevad (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but remember that we're not supposed to use primary sources, even if they're reliable. Like I said, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to sources. I don't consider this important enough other than to go on the record regarding my opinion, so I'll be on the look-out when a better source becomes available. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, primary sources are fine, so long as they're just being used to establish straightforward facts without interpretation. Please read WP:PSTS for more information. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Busan Metro

Thanks for your revert of 93.57.255.93's edits to Busan Metro's length. Reading your comment on the revert I just want to make sure to clarify some things so that we are on the same page. The edits I made to the Busan Metro's length is to omit the Donghae Line which is commuter service on a national railway. The original 168.4km length is the length of Busan Metro Lines 1, 2, 3 and 4 along with the Busan–Gimhae Light Rail Transit and Donghae Line. I removed the Donghae Line's length and stations but left the Busan–Gimhae LRT's length inside. 93.57.255.93 misinterpreted my reduction (I forgot to fill out the edit summary, my bad). IMO the Busan–Gimhae LRT should be included into the count.Terramorphous (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to your knowledge there, but will note that the Busan–Gimhae Line is listed at Medium-capacity rail transport system. Which really should just be moved to light metro. Just because one guy didn't understand the meaning of original research (more specifically, what isn't OR) doesn't mean we need to keep using the pointlessly jargon-y name. oknazevad (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said it all

Pithiness in edit summary
'Utter Bullshit' Enjoyed that. 7&6=thirteen () 15:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major information technology companies

I wanted to ask why did you undo the edits I made to the Major information technology companies? Rogue Commander (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many of them didn't match the revenue criteria for the section set out in the navbox's footer. Please double check that information (which should be in each company's infobox) before adding. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC) PS, you don't need to use a ping when posting to that person's talk page. They're automatically notified.[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were notified. Though I would appreciate it if you pinged me so I know that you responded. Also, I question the methodology here because there are already companies on the list, and were on that list beforehand, that don't meet those requirements: Glu Mobile doesn't; Gameloft doesn't; Epic Games doesn't; Nippon Ichi doesn't; Atari DEFINITELY doesn't considering the financial turmoil that company has gone through. Meanwhile, you removed Valve Corporation, which almost certainly would meet the requirements. Not that I necessarily agree with needing to dig through a company's financial information to meet an arbitrary number, I would at least want some consistency in how that rule is applied and I don't think it was applied in this case, which makes me wonder whether or not you checked the infoboxes before removing them, as many of these companies don't actually list their revenues in the boxes, an oversight on Wikipedia's part, and some of those that do shouldn't be on the list by the current rules. With such a high number, important companies like Capcom would have to be excluded entirely. Rogue Commander (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look that closely, true. But the first two I saw were below the threshold. Frankly, that sections getting a bit bloated, so I wouldn't mind if we raised the threshold entirely. oknazevad (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually would have a better idea. How about creating a separate template for major video game publishers and cutting the video game section out of here entirely, as video games don't exactly fit within the area of "information technology"? It would keep us from limiting the list to the point of being useless, cut down on the unwieldy size of this particular template, and actually be relevant to the video game pages. The only thing is I have no experience in creating a template from scratch, but I would be happy to help maintain it and move it to the relevant pages as necessary.Rogue Commander (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is be okay with cutting it out for that same reason. While the hardware manufacturers are pretty important, and so many games have an online component, videogaming is not exactly a major part of what one considers IT. These companies are more akin to movie studios; they're content providers, first and foremest. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Though once again, I have little expertise in creating such templates, nor am I familiar with the process that goes into making such a template.Rogue Commander (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually already started creating it in another window, using other templates as a guide. Having the support of a fellow experienced Wikipedian would be appreciated.Rogue Commander (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. I've worked on navboxes many times (even created a few from scratch). My first bit of advice would be to draft it in your WP:SANDBOX before moving it to its actual title. Even more importantly, I'd ask over at the video games wikiproject as to what they think should be included. Honestly, since such a navbox doesn't seem to already exist, there may be a reason for that. I'd definitely ask first before you spend too much time on and effort that doesn't go anywhere. That's frustrating. I've done it, I've seen it around others, and I'd hate for it to happen to you. oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep you updated. Rogue Commander (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a work in progress Template here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogue_Commander/sandbox. It will be what I show when I pitch the idea to the video game wikiproject.Rogue Commander (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I began a discussion for the template on the video game wiki project template here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Publisher_Template. Feel free to give your own feedback. It would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue Commander (talkcontribs) 22:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for helping out with the sports template sockpuppet. I've taken to refreshing its contributions page every couple minutes and going down the list of rollback links until someone can block it. It showed up earlier too and managed to fool me until I found the SPI case and realized what it was adding to these pages. dalahäst (let's talk!) 13:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I ran into a previous sock making the same type of edits a few weeks ago, so I knew sockpuppetry instantly. oknazevad (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, being the exact same edits. Already hauled off to SPI. oknazevad (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:GFW logo 2017.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GFW logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The reason as to why I want to delete and reupload as oppose to replace the The Muppets Studio logo is because the outdated version of a file is present on Google searches (because it's part of the file history). By deleting the file first and reuploading it in the same name, the undesirable version of the image is no longer in image searches. Hopefully, you understand. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do there is add the tag to delete old versions as quickly as possible. That said, we really don't need to worry about what google image search does. That's not our concern. oknazevad (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a concern to some people though. It's illogical to click on an image only to find it's not the same version when clicking the image's source. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kōbe Rapid Transit Railway

I saw you reverted my deletion of Kōbe Rapid Transit Railway from the List of metro systems: it would have been nicer if you had actually gone to that article's talk page and had given some detailed explainations of why you think it should remain in the list; instead you only left a vague edit summary: Listed as such (as a metro system, I suppose) throughout Wikipedia. However (given that there'd be somewhat a Wikipedia:WPNOTRS issue anyway) I searched a little through WP and I didn't find any article where Kōbe Rapid Transit Railway is explicitly listed or defined as metro/subway/HRT. Conversely:

  • reading Kōbe Rapid Transit Railway article, its nature of underground railway link for suburban/commuter services seems obvious;
  • it doesn't appear in LRTA's list of Light Rail, Light Railway, Tramway & Metro systems throughout the World;
  • Urbanrail.net doesn't make mention of it in its Kobe page, and in the map of that page, the network belonging to the company is drawn in thin line, among other local railways.

93.57.255.93 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's inclusion in Template:Metro systems in Japan is what I was mostly referring to. Though looking through it more, it doesn't seem that it really is a "system", per se. In fact, it's really hard to tell what the company even does, other than collect rent. Feel free to revert me, and remove it from the template. oknazevad (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply; then, I'll go ahead and delete it from both the list and the template. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prudential Center - Center-hung scoreboard

Hello, you deleted the info on the new center-hung scoreboard at Prudential Center. It is currently the largest center-hung in the world and should most definitely be mentioned in the description of the facility. What would be the appropriate way to include it since what I put was not acceptable?

I already put the most important aspects in the article. It didn't need a separate section, and that section certainly must not read like a blatant copying of the press release. There is mention to the scoreboard in the article as it is. It doesn't need more. oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum 160 proof

Regarding this, I was looking at that IP edit too. I notice that the regulation does say "produced at not exceeding 160° proof". I had thought that was referring to a maximum degree of distillation rather than also a maximum bottling proof, but now I wonder if it also applies to bottling strength. I understand that it is possible (under some conditions) for proof to increase during aging. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's about still proof, not bottling proof. As you note, sometimes proof actually increases during aging, which is why some barrel proof whiskeys (like a couple of the Booker's releases) are above 160° in the bottle. That doesn't disqualify them as bourbons. The edit is a misinterpretation of the regulation. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming that. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please don't blank sourced content based on your own personal analysis, as you did in this edit. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what editors believe to be true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what happens when the source is plainly incorrect. Neither of us production companies, nor the director, nor the filming location were British. I can find no other source that agree with the AFI one. That tells me that it is in error, or that corroboration must be supplied. (This is in contrast to prior Muppet productions, which had British backing and/or were shot in the UK, which is likely the source of the error.) oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In your own personal opinion, it may not qualify as British, but this doesn't make a source "plainly wrong". As far as Wikipedia is concerned, what makes a film British is being defined that way by reliable sources. You can argue that a certain band is obviously heavy metal, but Wikipedia doesn't really care about your criteria for the definition of what makes a band heavy metal; it's what reliable sources say that matters. In any case, the British Film Institute says it's a US/UK co-production, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer at the top of the page and the copyright notice at the bottom both mention that the site is maintained and run by fans of Tolkien. 109.147.114.109 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the reference is to the interview with Gygax; the reliability stems from the interview's subject, not who conducted it. Unless you're claiming the interview is made up and never happened, then it is a reliable source to use in the article, without a tag. oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the interview I was disputing, just the source. 109.147.114.109 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Falls under the "Exceptions" detailed on the next paragraph. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Federer the Greatest Male court player

Hi I noticed you removed my quote and cited source to Federer being perceived by John McEnroe and Pat cash who are tennis commentators as the greatest Male grass court player of all time as fan puffery nonsense. Surely it is not false praise or inflations when there is stats to back up the claim he is the best, I mean he has won has won an Open Era record 17 grass court titles including an all-time record 9 Halle Open titles, and an all-time record of 8 Wimbledon gentleman's singles titles. He reached an all-time record 11 Wimbledon finals and is the only male player to achieve these feats in the Open Era. Federer has the longest grass court winning streak in the Open Era as he won 65 consecutive matches on grass from 2003 to 2008 , is it still subjective ? I mean Pete Sampras won 7 in 8 years undefeated in all his 7 finals has said Federer is the best on Grass Amy foster (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The writing was so poor, that there's no way I would leave it in place regardless of content. Plus, as noted the last time it was removed (by a different editor), the Open Era is not all-time, and the pre-Open Era was a very different time, with much shorter careers, and a heck of a lot more grass court tournaments. The current phrasing acknowledges that Federer holds many Open Era records. It does not draw conclusions that that makes him the single greatest grass court player of all time, because an encyclopedia does not write that way. You can make that conclusion for yourself, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Just leave the facts and let the reader make their own conclusions. oknazevad (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dogs life / Dingo

dogs life is not a University publication https://www.dogslife.com.au/contact-us/ secondly the link does not direct the reader to any verifiable information, such a claim really needs to be linked to a verifiable and reliably published scientific article. Gnangarra 13:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed four scientific journals references in the slash-and-burn edits. Okay, there could be a better source than dogslife.com, but your edits were excessive and careless. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macallan

I saw that back in July you made a couple of edits to the Speyside single malt article, both times removing Macallan from the list of Speyside distilleries. I've edited it back in and I just wanted to make sure you will not remove the correct information again.

Macallan IS a Speyside distillery, according to the Scottish Whisky regulations as it is located in the Speyside Glenlivet ward of Moray. The legislation can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2890/contents/made

the relevant part:

"Speyside”, comprising—
(i)the wards of Buckie, Elgin City North, Elgin City South, Fochabers Lhanbryde, Forres, Heldon and Laich, Keith and Cullen and Speyside Glenlivet of the Moray Council as those wards are constituted in the Moray (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006(2); and
(ii)the Badenoch and Strathspey ward of the Highland Council as that ward is constituted in the Highland (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006(3).

also relevant:

“Highland”, comprising that part of Scotland that is north of the line dividing the Highland region from the Lowland region;

The entire Speyside region is north of the dividing line and therefore within the Highland whisky region. Speyside distilleries can refer to themselves as either Speyside or Highland or both. Macallan refers to itself as both.

109.151.35.128 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. oknazevad (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of years of productive input. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Users Buster7 and 7&6=thirteen submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

An active part of the Wikipedia community since August 2004, User Oknazevad is a diverse, consistent and productive contributor to many spheres of the Wiki. His actions and activity at List of current champions in WWE and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has been fundamental in the broad based growth of the encyclopedia. He is also interested in articles about rail transport. He has edited over 19,000 pages, uses the edit summary 95% of the time and has 60000 edits with 77% in article space. This speaks to a focused editor hard at work, always willing to give good advice and move a discussion toward resolution. Not an admin; just a quiet no-drama WP:wikignome.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  23:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]