User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 15

Happy New Year, Oknazevad!

Happy New Year!

Oknazevad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

List of Current champions in WWE

Ruler continues to add the pic if Styles and refuses to take it to the talk. I've asked him for a third time to take it to the talk and reverted it back. Not sure what to do from here as clearly he wants it and others dont. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he persists, a case at WP:ANEW should be filed. oknazevad (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, how do I do a case at anew or maybe you should do I don't screw it up? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And his attitude got him blocked for 60 hrs. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rye Whiskey

Hello Oknazevad, I wish you a happy new year.

On 12/26 you undid my edit of the article "Rye Whiskey" - which I'm perfectly fine with if I was wrong. The wiki-article says: "...although by the late 1960s even Pennsylvania names such as Old Overholt were being distilled only in Kentucky" - the word ONLY meaning, that from the late 60's NO Old Overholt was made in Pennsylvania. But now I've read the whole linked source that you cited as proof that Old Overholt "had been moved to Kentucky under National Distillers years before the merger with Beam, like the source says" - and to be frank I cannot find any such information. The source indeed gives hint that National Distillers at some time ALSO filled Kentucky-distilled liquor as Old Overholt. But the source clearly states that "We have in our collection bottles of Old Overholt ... which was bottled in Cincinnati, Ohio in the late 1960s or early 1970s. The whiskey is identified only as "Distilled in Pennsylvania". By the way - I have already seen such a "bottled in Cincinnati, distilled in Pennsylvania"-Old Overholt with my very eyes. So I'm convinced, that the wiki-article statement, that from the late 60's on Old Overholt ONLY came out of Kentucky, is simply wrong.

I'd appreciate, If you reconsider your reversion of my edit. Cheers, Purzelbier (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm still going to need to check further to get the exact dates, I do know for a fact that Old Overholt was made in Kentucky before the takeover of National Distillers, and the brand, by Beam, which was in 1987. By that time the only functioning distillery left in Pennsylvania was the Michter's Distillery in eastern PA, and they did not supply National, being a small operation with its own brands. Now, there is a good point that they pretty much would put any rye whiskey that they could get economically and fit the flavor into the bottle, so the "only" should be removed, but while I'm not sure if the exact date, I do know that end of Pennsylvania whiskey in Old Overholt pre-dates the Beam takeover of the brand. oknazevad (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your profound reply and your edit of the article!Purzelbier (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North American Supporters' Trophy

I see you reverted to IP's version. Then explain me why is that trophy listed here and here? These two additions been there forever and somehow nobody corrected it. Since I'm more of a ice hockey and basketball guy, I don't really know the real situation. Please enlighten me on this. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're there because, as you say, nobody corrected it. See the article on the trophy itself. oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody bothered to do it, I removed them from 2015 and 2016 articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Frankly so many of the NASL articles still have the taint of one former POV-pushing fanboy editor who drank the kool-aid when it came to the failed attempt to act like the NASL was anything more than a second-rate league and that the Neo-Cosmos are actually a continuation of the historic team that it's just annoying to sort through. oknazevad (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hardys

My block is over, and I am tempted to revert Hellboy42 again, but I know he won't listen so I need some help to show him that he is wrong. I'm asking you because we've got one in the right place (see your archived conversation [User_talk:Oknazevad/Archive13#Hardys here]. The other edits that need to be reverted are these (although some would restore Brother Nero and that shouldn't be done) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Note also that in some cases he uses the questionable 411 mania as an independent source, removing my entirely reliable independent source PW Torch. If he persists in maintaining what is clearly wrong as previously explained (and he ignored) other action will be needed. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop it. It's not worth the fight. oknazevad (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A massive (as in multiple) BLP violation isn't worth the fight?? 101.182.29.49 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a BLP violation, because it's fiction. It's also correct, as they are billed as such on Impact, as easily seen on the most recent episode. oknazevad (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So TNA have changed it after all this time after all?? Okay if that's the case then there's nothing to be done now. Might be an idea to put it back on that page you reverted him on that I can't because it's semi protected (unless someone else already has). 101.182.29.49 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Styles sitting pic

So AJ sitting in the chair was added again on List of current champions in WWE, I have reverted it back to the other. Not sure what else to do as it's a different user adding it now, seeing as you disagreed with the pic too I figured I get your input. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NJTransit-Raritan-infobox

I know the edit summary is misleading, but Useddenim did revert himself (back to BD2412's edit). You might want to self-revert. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of italics in hatnotes

Do you have a guideline link? I didn't find it at WP:HAT, MOS:ITAL or MOS:ITALICS. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice in typesetting, from my understanding. The point of italic titles is to offset the title from the surrounding text; when the text is italics, Roman is set off. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant formatting

Please do not put redundant formatting into articles. I have worked on this article before, and this material will never be needed and just clutters up the edit screen. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not redundant. Indeed, naming the references, while not strictly necessary, helps ensure that future editors don't duplicate the same references. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Avenue Subway

I think that the old plan for the service on the SAS should still be mentioned. Maybe it should be in the part about the 1999 MESA study?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a better location, I think. It puts it in the proper historical context while avoiding cluttering the section on actual services with trivial details. oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is where it was before it was moved. I shall move it. Thanks for your input.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metroliner image

I switched the infobox image because it didn't actually show a car in Metroliner service - the image is during pre-acceptance testing. Take your pick of anything in commons:Category:Metroliner (train), but I don't think the current image is appropriate for this article. (It would work fine for the Budd Metroliner article though - perhaps we should just switch the images?) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good idea. The problem with the image placed is that it barely shows the train itself. oknazevad (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'll be doing some history cleanup / additions on the article about the service today or tomorrow as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit for List of Muppets

On the List of Muppets page, I edited the description of Gonzo to say that he identified himself as a "weirdo" and put a link to a video from Muppet Babies (which is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzDUnxU6mSY ), where Gonzo says, "I'm not a bird! I'm a weirdo!" While it is unclear whether he is referring to his species or genus or some other level of biological identification, it seems clear to me that within that show the term "weirdo" is supposed to be a biological designation rather than just a description of his personality. There are two other examples in the video where he does the same thing. However, you deleted my edit. What are your thoughts on the meaning of the term within the context of the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibernia86 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it's a baby with little understanding confusing species with personality. It's baby Gonzo being an oddball, as fits his personality. It is not something to be taken literally, just as it was never taken literally back when the series first aired in the 80s, when the younger me was an avid regular viewer. oknazevad (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

The user Reggiewray01 (talk · contribs) continues to unduly modify the TNA article. 2804:7F4:FB80:1D64:E2:7FC1:95D5:ECBE (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editions of Dungeons & Dragons

I have started a discussion about the Reference/Citation Needed tags at Talk:Editions of Dungeons & Dragons#Reference and Citation Needed tags. (Catchy title, huh?) Please discuss there rather than reverting. Thanks and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 February

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

On the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Stars for Rebels and on ANY Show

Okay firstly, their is clearly a BIG misconception when it comes to what you said on "Guest Stars" in your revision on the Rebels episode page:

It's not about celebrity. It's about them not being one of the five regular cast characters

Okay let me be black and white about this on the usage of "Guest Star" whether its an animated show and especially a Live-action show. Just because an actor/actress that isn't part of the main cast and listed as a recurring or supporting role doesn't necessarily mean that they are considered a "Guest Star". Honestly, I feel that their is no need to add anyone that isn't part of the main cast as a "Guest Star", because honestly it clearly feels odd just to have recurring/supporting actors be listed under "Guest Star" and looks like some spam, not to mention most if not all of the episode pages on wikipedia rarely list "Guest Stars" on the episode descriptions, unless if that particular "Guest Star" was mentioned in a Press release, News article, or an Episode description press release--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters are an interesting issue, because they are semi-regular by definition. That said, what differentiates Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was arecurring Gillian in season 2 and appeared multiple times, and Ashley Eckstein, who had the recurring role of Ahsoka in season 2 and appeared roughly the same number of times? Both were established actresses before their Star Wars involvement. So why would Glar be listed as a guest star and Eckstein not? That's my issue with removal. oknazevad (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at the same time, I do feel it doesn't make sense just listing an actor/actress that is in a semi-regular and recurring/supporting role from Rebels or better yet The Clone Wars show listed as Guest stars, since more often it can be misleading and inaccurate to most people. It also applies to ANY show (animated or Live-action) in general not just Rebels.

Of course, most live-action shows do list a "Guest Starrring" description credit for the actors that guest appear in this episode, however as from what I've seen on the Episode description's on wikipedia or most media websites, they rarely mentioned ANY of the miscellanous actors in the episode and only pinpoint that particular actor that has guest starred in this particular episode in a press release.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Please Stop saying I edit war three times!!! I only edit war 2 times!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this discussion on the article talk page so that others can weigh in. Also, please use the preview function so you don't have to change your posts after they've been saved; it clogs up the edit history and causes too many notifications. And especially, please don't change your posts after someone has responded. That's against talk page guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can weigh in

I've run into a problem at Survivor Series (1992) that I explained to LM2000.[12] Senior users have sided with a long-term vandal over me because he's using an account, without even looking at the WP:PW/RS-violating edits he's making. All the best. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wanting To Start An Edit War

British English / OED English should be used for an article about a British subject.

Cheers! (a British way of saying thank you)

Pam-javelin (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Oxford spelling, which is indeed British. The -ize spelling is not exclusively American, and not incorrect in British use. oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is just poor English.

Pam-javelin (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the OED. oknazevad (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNA vacated the title

This is perfect reason why title changes should not be changed until they are or are acknowledged by the company. They vacated the title Del Rio never won it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Impact isn't necessarily "live to tape", that is, shot like it's a live broadcast, just aired later, with minimal-if-any editing. SmackDown, before it was actually live, was live-to-tape, as are the late night talk shows (The Tonight Show is taped at 6pm eastern, for an example I know well). So maybe we shouldn't be so hasty to report. I think this needs to be discussed at the project. oknazevad (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, I have added 2 references specifically stating Alberto vacated the title, and that Lashley was given the title back. Stop making calculus out of simple math. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did they vacate the title or did they vacate the match result? Two separate things, one of which results in a championship vacancy, one of which does not. Here's an idea, stop changing it and wait for the episode to air. WP:NOTNEWS, and all that. Because TNA match reports have a history of being inaccurate, because the promotion itself doesn't explain well what's going on to the crowd in attendance.

And regardless, you need to re-edit your changes instead of just reverting, because your carelessness is restoring shitty sentences that were edited in between you constant reverts. oknazevad (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vjmlhds It seems a week doesn't go by that you don't find yourself in an edit war. This is really getting out of control and it's going back to a noticeboard if you continue. This was a standard dusty finish in the same vein as Chris Jericho's phantom reign or Hogan's victory over Bockwinkel.LM2000 (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please wait until the episode airs for clarification. These reports have been shown to be of limited reliability in the past. oknazevad (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LM2000 oknazevad Truthfully, it really is sounding like you guys are just trying come off as "smarter" than the room. There is NOTHING in any of the references I provided that has anything to do with a "Dusty finish". Seriously...you throw around "edit war" very carelessly. I made an edit with 2 references to back me up, but you two say "pay no attention to the references...WE KNOW BETTER!". Really...get over yourselves - your fecal matter smells as bad as everyone elses. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you find yourself constantly edit warring with different people all the time, perhaps it's time to stop passing the blame onto everyone else. You know your sources are unreliable per WP:PW/RS. Here's another unreliable source to contradict yours: "That match ended in controversy and it was announced at tonight's tapings that the title was taken from Alberto and given back to Lashley." As we learn more things may change, it took NWA 10 years to recognize Ray Gonzalez's reign, but right now we're being consistent with how we usually handle these situations.LM2000 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LM2000 I can't help it if I dare have a different opinion than the Wiki-borg. Sounds like a "conform or die" manifesto. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you just can't accept that WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Don't like that? Tough. It's one of the bedrock policies, and will not change. Now, please cease having this discussion on my talk page, all these edits are clogging up my notifications. oknazevad (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oknazevad sorry been off and was unaware you had responded, My intentions when I started this thread to you was what I was saying when this started days ago that we shouldn't post results till they air because of stunts like what Impact pulled, it turns Wiki into a news site. I wanted to discuss with you how to approach this with the project as it was part of a consensus to post the results in this manner but I wasn't aware you had responded and now someone has chosen to highjack my thread to you. I'm sorry the thread and your talk was highjacked and we were unable to discuss. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFL/MLB on Fox

someone changed the name of The NFL on Fox to Fox NFL WITHOUT providing a valid source. Social media accounts are even (Sport) on Fox. So, I assume the show's legal name is still called (sport name) on Fox. ACMEDeputy (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source. Make sure to use it when you start a move discussion on the talk page. But please do not simply make cut-and-paste move again. That's not allowed. If you need help, feel free to ask, I'll gladly help. oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English

http://www.polygon.com/2016/12/20/14024616/rogue-one-star-wars-standalone-marvel-avengers
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/rogue-not-standalone-prequel-article-1.2916168
https://theringer.com/movies-rogue-one-star-wars-anthology-label-4889c48d13a1
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/21/rogu-d21.html

Learn English, mate. "Stand alone" means exactly that -- a self-contained movie that does not rely on other movies to support it. How can Rouge One be stand alone when it relies in the events of the original trilogy and prequel trilogy to exist? It relies on the pre-established Star Wars universe, its characters, events, and creation to work as a canon film with no retcons that would harm the continuity between the two existing trilogies. No one can watch Rouge One all on its own without at least watching the original trilogy to see what the film was actually about and resulted in. It relies 100% on the franchise, ergo it cannot be a stand alone feature, no matter what any thing elsewhere says.

Doesn't matter what some, not "all" sources say? Some places in the world say being gay is unnatural, should be treat them as "all" being right too? i.e. Wiki isn't about cherry-picking it's about being precise. The only reason some sites call Rougue One a "stand alone" film ie because they either don't know the meaning of the word, or because they are promoting it on behalf of Disney, who used the term to draw in new viewers who are not familiar with Star Wars films, and those people will be left duped once they realise they have to see more than this film to get a complete picture. The only thing "standalone" about the film is that its a single-release film that tells a full story rather than being dragged out across another trilogy. Regardless, the term "stand alone" is wrong and so are you for reverting my literal correction to an illiterate fallacy. You make it look like wiki is marketing for Disney instead of using accurate language; Disney is American so normal English might not be its strong point. 82.26.59.181 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?

Please explain. wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antherm Sports & Entertainment is not the common DBA name of the promotion. We don't use an unknown name. And you still haven't showed sufficient understanding of the subject area as to what a professional wrestling promotion actually is or does. oknazevad (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on reflection I see your point, though I was linking to the promotion, not naming it. I see how readers could be confused by that. Don't mix me up with someone else, though I'm not an expert, I'm not that dense either. wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goju Ryu

Hi Okanazevad, thanks for your reply re Goju Ryu conditioning. I happen to think that it is an important part of Traditional Goju Ryu - and it could be added as such in brackets. I am new to wikipedia editing and would like to hear how would you add any relevant karate info? Karate is not only about Katas.

Thank you Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.155.131 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are definitely going to need references, as the passage had none. Secondly, you must make sure that it really is universal; the conditioning exercises we use in my dojo are quite different, and it's a very traditional Goju-Ryu syllabus (my Sensei is originally from Japan, though he is now enjoying his well-deserved retirement). Otherwise, just recounting what you've learned at your dojo isn't much of a proper thing to include in an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaScore

Hi Oknazevad. In principle, you'd be right, but the facts show that not everyone knows to use CinemaScore and so mark it as a {{dead link}}. I was just trying to simplify things. CinemaScore has had a new idea: is exploiting its official Twitter account to publish images that unite its average grade and the movie poster. Why not be more user-friendly by directly linking these pictures? Are they less reliable sources of what you find on cinemascore.com? Lanari Mauro. 82.84.33.205 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)82.84.33.205 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, we really shouldn't link to Twitter, per WP:ELNO. And if a reader can't use a simple search box at that website, they've likely got more significant user issues. oknazevad (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check it out

You undid my recent edit on John F. Kennedy International Airport. I request you to check this discussion. This 3rd day question was raised due to a single source. Vibhss (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that discussion. You keep getting reverted by multiple editors. Maybe you should take that as a hint to not edit again until the discussion is finished? And that the edit is questionable at best anyway. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad: Sorry sir, for your information my edits got reverted by only you and an another user who seems to be fond of edit-warring. I was not the one who added Mumbai. Mumbai was being listed as destination on John F. Kennedy International Airport until last month when a "newbie" removed the destination citing this flightradar24.com source (just a flight tracking website). After 12 days, I noticed his edit and reverted it. 10 days later, this user again removed Mumbai after placing a "comment" and starting a "discussion" on talk page of concerned airport. And when I reverted him, all this started. A question sir, do we use flight tracking websites to verify the directness (same flight number, same aircraft) of a direct fight ? If you say "yes", then I should tell you I also have this source (again a flight tracking website) which clearly mentions this flight operates in same aircraft throughout journey every day (this source was introduced by Digangana (talk · contribs) in the discussion). There are many such sources. The bottom-line is that the reliability of all flight tracking sites are questionable. Also, as per bulletin #10 of WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, only the timetable published by concerned airline should be used as implicit source for current destinations of that airline from the concerned airport. And Air India Timetable clearly mentions that AI 102 is a direct flight with same aircraft. And please don't refer to the "through hub" stuff since it applies for those directs flying b/w two spoke-cities via a domestic hub. Here, the starting point Mumbai (BOM) is itself a secondary hub (totally different from a spoke-city) of Air India and the flight flies from sec. hub to primary hub (DEL) to spoke city (JFK). I have explained this in detail in the discussion. And the consensus for inclusion of Mumbai (even though it was not needed) is increasing in the discussion. I wish you could have reverted the edits of the "newbie" and not mine. Vibhss (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't care enough. I do know that you are talking in circles at the JFK talk page.", and that repeating the same arguments here is unneeded and inappropriate. Also, you do not need to ping me on my own talk page as I'd be notified anyway. In fact, that's a bit rude. oknazevad (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if it was rude. But I just wanted to convey to you there are so many flight tracking websites which disagree particularly in regard to direct flight. We can't verify the directness of a direct flight from such sites. That's why we are expected to use timetable of airline. Right ? Since it was you who reverted me and placed a comment regarding change of aircraft by the flight (just based on a random flight tracking site), I posted the above message on your talk page to clarify my stand and I also gave you link to another flight tracking site which... Okay, I won't complete it otherwise I will be labelled "repetitive". What else shall I do ? I am being asked to establish consensus for including a destination which has been always listed in that article just because a random flight tracking site which... Even when there is Air India timetable and other flight tracking sites which... (trying to avoid being repetitive). Sir, if you "don't care enough" for my justifications even after getting involved, reverting my edits labelling them "questionable", then it's rude on your part, not mine. Peace. Vibhss (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on Wikipedia

Oknazevad:

You don't appreciate my edits on Wikipedia. For example, the Southern Tier Line and the Lackawanna Cut-Off.

The Southern Tier Line now goes from Binghamton to Buffalo, this is on a 2008 NS Harrisburg Division timetable I found. However, I'm not allowed to mention that on the Port Jervis Line page so the Port Jervis Line is regarded as part of the Southern Tier Line still. NS may still own the tracks from Suffern to Binghamton, Port Jervis Line and the Port Jervis to Binghamton route, but it is not part of the Southern Tier Line anymore as of 2008. NS separated Suffern to Binghamton from the Southern Tier Line according to the 2008 NS Harrisburg Division timetable I found.

Under Conrail and NS before 2008 and maybe before 2006 or 2003, the Southern Tier Line went from Suffern to Buffalo. After 2008, the Southern Tier Line goes from Binghamton to Buffalo, leaving out the Binghamton to Suffern trackage and that includes the Binghamton to Port Jervis trackage which contains the Starrucca Viaduct. Binghamton to Port Jervis is maintained by NYSW and still owned by NS, but as of 2008 it is not part of the Southern Tier Line anymore. So Binghamton to Port Jervis along with Port Jervis to Suffern is still owned by NS but not part of the Southern Tier Line anymore.

Now since you say Suffern to Port Jervis is still part of the Southern Tier Line which is Port Jervis Line proper, you consider the Port Jervis Line as a rail line too. For you it's like, a rail line travels on a rail line. Is it possible for a rail line to travel on a rail line? No it is not possible for a rail line to travel on a rail line. It is impossible for a single track to be part of two different rail lines. A track belongs to one rail line only, not two. Therefore, the Port Jervis Line is a rail service and not a rail line, traveling on NS Suffern to Port Jervis trackage which is presumed to be the Southern Tier Line and traveling on the NJT Main Line.

My first edit was based on the route map of the Port Jervis Line service, my first edit matched the route map of the Port Jervis Line. My second edit matched the 2008 employee timetable I found on the Southern Tier Line which has it travels from Binghamton to Buffalo. I edited the route map to match the 2008 employee timetable I found on the Southern Tier Line. Your edits or should I say reverts to both my edits doesn't make sense. A rail line doesn't travel on rail line. If you tell that to a person in public, they will be like "What?".

Can you prove the Suffern to Port Jervis tracks and the Binghamton to Port Jervis tracks are still part of the Southern Tier Line? I hereby give you a link to the 2008 timetable I found on the Southern Tier Line that shows it runs from Binghamton to Buffalo.

Southern Tier Line employee timetable for 2008 on page 59- http://blet659.org/hbtt-1.pdf

On the Lackawanna Cut-Off, my information is relevant. I even changed words around so that it stays in line with the project page. I used keywords on the rail line page like "projected" and "expected" from the project page so that my info sounds appropriate. Projected service was pushed back from 2018 to 2019, that's from the project page so I transferred that to the rail line page. I even add the small past updates from Port Morris to Andover. On the info box, it says it is opened 2011-Present. No it is not opened yet, that's wrong. It says it is closed from 1984-2011. Its 1984-Present, it's still closed. It says 1 track 2011-Present, no its still 0 tracks. It says it is operated by NJ Transit 2011-Present, how can it be operated by NJ Transit if it's not being used yet, doesn't make sense? My edits on Wikipedia is a response to what I saw on my visit to the Roseville Tunnel. I'm not using no crystal ball, I copied information from the project page to the rail line page and I'm not allowed to do that. If I'm not allowed to do that then you should change the info on the project page then- Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project.

The point I'm making is that it is me. You don't want me to edit on Wikipedia. If someone else wrote the same info as I did for both the Southern Tier Line and the Lackawanna Cut-Off, you would probably let that go. I am being truthful on Wikipedia and being truthful is unexceptionable on Wikipedia? Wow, if I told that to a random stranger he would agree with me. Based on your logs, you edit Wikipedia for either correcting a page or undue information. I don't see that you update pages with new information. How's that a contribution to Wikipedia? The purpose of Wikipedia is to create pages and edit pages that need to be updated. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information on subjects with routine up to date information on those subjects. Wikipedia has gotten away from that for the past decade. Only popular pages on Wikipedia that everyone knows about such as Star Wars gets routine updates while pages that everyone doesn't know about such as the Lackawanna Cut-Off doesn't get routine updates. It seems like you always keep a close on me everytime I contribute to Wikipedia. That's a form of stalking. I call inappropriate stuff out that I feel needs to be addressed. Granthew (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I keep showing up because your editing interests (NY/NJ railroads) overlap mine. Both the Port Jervis Line and Lackawanna Cutoff pages are on my watchlist, and have been for over a decade. So with that out of the way, let's talk about the edits.

Regarding the Port Jervis Line, re-read that timetable. It explicitly refers to the Suffern industrial track and other junctions east of Port Jervis. A railroad employee timetable does not define what is part of a railroad, just what speeds and other operating rules govern it. Since east of Port Jervis is governed by the NJ Transit timetable, it is omitted from the NS one, but that does not mean the line is not part of the Southern Tier Line.

As for the Lackawanna Cutoff, there haze been an active NJ Transit track on the right of way since 2011, even if it not currently used for revenue service, so the 2011 date is correct. It is not zero tracks. And putting any future date (let alone bumping it up by one year without sources) is unacceptable per WP:CRYSTALBALL. That's why multiple editors have reverted you on that one. oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess NJ Transit/SEPTA/Metro North articles are on your watchlist. I still think the Southern Tier Line now starts at Binghamton. I did see a mention of Port Jervis to Croxton and Suffern to Howells in the Diesel Units Ratings and the Locomotive and Car Restrictions sections but I don't think it's enough to claim that Suffern to Binghamton is still part of the Southern Tier Line. I disagree with employee timetables not being a source for where a rail lines end points are. I think employee timetables are a great source for determining where a rail lines end points are. Now since you think employee timetables are false well than on a 2008 NS Harrisburg Division track charts PDF file, it shows the Southern Tier Line starting at Binghamton. No mention of the Suffern to Binghamton trackage on these track charts.

Back to the same employee timetable, the Buffalo Line on the employee timetable shows the part where NS leases the trackage to WNYP and the B&P railroads. Since NS doesn't use its Buffalo Line trackage that is leased to WNYP and B&P, NS still considers the leased trackage it owns as part of the Buffalo Line. So couldn't NS put that in the Southern Tier Line employee timetable that explains that the Suffern to Binghamton is leased to Metro-North and NYSW? Yes NS could've put that in there, but didn't so that's another reason why I think NS doesn't consider Suffern to Binghamton as part of the Southern Tier Line anymore.

Now since you still think the Southern Tier Line starts at Suffern than how come the Port Jervis Line is classified as a rail line then? Shouldn't it be classified as a rail service? You say that the Port Jervis Line is part of the Southern Tier Line yet you are classifying it as a rail line too? This does not make sense. Repeating again, a rail line doesn't travel on a rail line. Tracks belong to one rail line, not two rail lines. It is impossible for a single rail line to be part of two rail lines. A single rail line is a single rail line, not two single rail lines. Do you understand this question?

Now I have new Southern Tier Line and Lackawanna Cut-Off history I've found, but I will never add that to the Southern Tier Line and Lackawanna Cut-Off articles because you will remove it. Suffern to Hoboken was part of the Southern Tier Line too until Conrail sold it to NJ Transit and Suffern to Hoboken became the NJT Main Line and no the NJT Main Line is not the continuation in chronological history of the Erie Main Line, it simply just uses former Erie Main Line trackage. Same with the Southern Tier Line, it is as well not the continuation in chronological history of the Erie Main Line either, it just uses former Erie Main Line trackage, former DL&W main line trackage and former Erie Howell to Buffalo line trackage. As with the Lackawanna Cut-Off, I've found that Slateford was not always the PA end point of the Cut-Off, Stroudsburg, PA was at one time the PA end point of the Cut-Off while the Cut-Off used the Slateford to Stroudsburg trackage of the DL&W main line, but I will not add that info either. Also, the Cut-Off became part of the Morrisville Line in the 1970's and I'm not adding that info either. I'm not and never adding this info to the Cut-Off because you will remove it.

Onto the Cut-Off, WallyFromColumbia doesn't view the storage track as a reopening to the Cut-Off so the info box should be changed. However, I'm not allowed to do that cause you will revert it back. So the only solution to that is I removed the words- "is a former rail line that" from the first sentence of the article. The Cut-Off article is now a neutral article and neutral articles are a favorite amongst Wikipedia administrators like yourself. To be honest, the more neutral Wikipedia becomes, the more it loses credibility.Granthew (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is meant by "neutral" here. We try to be objective. Is that neutral? I sure hope so. Regarding the re-opening of the Cut-Off, the Cut-Off is officially in the construction phase, and has been since 2011. How could it be otherwise? Regarding the western "end" of the Cut-Off, it has been and always will be Slateford. The line was built between Port Morris NJ and Slateford PA (1908-1911). (East) Stroudsburg, or anything west of Slateford, is part of the pre-existing mainline that harkens back to the 1850s. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Cut-Off. I'd rather not that we quibble over this kind of stuff, but there is a point where a line needs to be drawn where gray areas become black or white.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Leia Organa Relatives Section

Hello, Oknazevad!

I see you have undone several changes to the Leia Organa Wikipedia page, specifically the Relatives section. You're provided reasoning for these changes states, "Too many trivial," which I find "vague and unconvincing." I believe that for an official character page to truly be official, it must contain all possible answers to any possible questions that may arise, such as the amount of relatives (living or deceased) a certain character has, such as Princess Leia. It would help very much if you would respond at soon as possible to compromise this issue, and to diminish any threat of argument or pointless debate. Thank you!

-- 22RootLan

We are not Wookiepedia. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York City Subway

I don't understand what you mean here by Creates wrapping issues, especially on the shuttles (which are supposed to be on the same line so the S bullet applies to them all... Could you elaborate on that? The "current shuttles" appear on the same line to me. They look like this:

Shuttles: 42nd Street • Franklin Avenue • Rockaway Park

right under all the other current bullets. The same applies to the former designations as well: all on the same line, at least for my display. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On narrower displays, such as the one I'm using, the Franklin Park Shuttle wraps to a separate line. Minimizing the squeezing by removing the (frankly unneeded) grouping minimizes the chances of that happening. And the grouping isn't really needed; the labels without are clear enough. oknazevad (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about using a child navbox for the shuttles? epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. oknazevad (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pork jowl

I apologise-- you were quite correct and I wasn't quite paying attention to what I was doing. PepperBeast (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all slip up. oknazevad (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research - but it takes too long to fix it?

So I see you reverted the edit I did to remove the ridiculous claim that ECW traced their world championship back to the original 1905 version. And why "because it's been like that before Wikipedia". That is NOT a reason to revert it "it's always been written like that" - well then it's always been wrong and it has always been Original Research. There are no sources to support that claim, actually, on the contrary - sources provided prove that the ECW title existed prior to the NWA tournament and was then later elevated when they rejected the NWA which seems to support the claim that they never claimed any sort of lineage. You need to provide a reliable source to make this claim, otherwise it is original research that goes against all known facts and as such will be removed. MPJ-DK 23:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Coke

I see you haven't actually read WP:NFCC that I pointed you towards. We do not need a non-free image to inform our readers about a name of a product. Therefore the image fails NFCC8 very clearly. I suggest you read the policy properly. I will continue to revert this image out of the article - it is not acceptable per our policies. Non-free minimalism is part of WP:5P and is one of two policies (the other being WP:BLP) that will be enforced routinely. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and violations of NFCC are exempt from WP:3RR per WP:3RRNO. I don't want to see you get blocked over such a trivial issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get a third opinion, as you are not the sole judge of whether or not something violates NFCC (which I've read myriad times; I've been here for over 13 years). Clearly we have a disagreement of the applicability, not the policy content. I see it as able significant of an identifying logo as the one in the infobox. And the image really doesn't pass the threshold of originality, anyway, being purely writing and simple geometric shapes. (PS, the block threat is uncool) oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even close - if this was an article about Diet Coke Light then its logo/photo would be unexceptional (see, for example, Diet Coke Plus), but this article isn't about Diet Coke Light, so it fails NFCC on the spot. It wasn't a block threat, by the way, I thought I'd mention it before it got to anything like that point! Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, good thought about it being PD-Logo - I don't think it qualifies for TOO because of the background, but that is just my opinion and it might be worth taking it to the image noticeboard - if it is PD then that solves the problem straight away. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the article about Coca-Cola Light. That's the point. The low-calorie cola known as Diet Coke in the US is known as Coca-Cola Light in most of the rest of the English speaking world. It's not a different product. We have one article about it, and a redirect from the alternate name, because Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not names. But providing key identification of the alternate name is valid. See, for example, Sega Genesis, where both logos, for the Genesis name and the other name of Sega Mega Drive are in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but do we need a non-free image to tell the world that? To be honest, I'd have a separate article, because the current one doesn't explain that some of the world knows Diet Coke by a different name (I didn't know from the article, I don't live in the US and it's called Diet Coke here). However, if we expanded the "Light" section with a bit more info about it, and added a section to the lead paragraph listing the countries where it's called that (it's currently not mentioned there at all), then I think the "Light" section could live with a single non-free image ... Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a good point. There no mention of which countries use the "Light" name vs the "Diet" one, nor why the name difference exists. (From what I've seen, though I'm trying to find higher quality sources, "diet" has particular meaning, even legally mandated in some countries, referring to special foods ordered by a physician, so it would be inappropriate for just a low-calorie cola.) Of course, the alternate name isn't even sourced, though it could be argued that the image was the source. Regardless, a bit about the naming differences should be in the article, possibly in the part about different sweetening formulas in different countries; I don't think a separate article is really necessary. oknazevad (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate list

A separate list called "List of Star Wars spin-off films" should be created. And that's not a category.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is created, then that's fine. But pointing a redirect in article space to a category is no good. That said, I don't see the need for a separate list when we have List of Star Wars films and television series, which really isn't that long. A separate list for just the spin-offs would be too short and redundant. oknazevad (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a point there. We've got six films (five produced and one upcoming) we can redirect "Star Wars anthology" films to the list you have because the anthology list does not include all spin-off films. I'll consider creating a list, considering we have up to six films, but I'll look into it later when I have more time.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Han Solo

Whoops. I was reverting off an older version that stated something to the effect of "following 2016's prequel to the original 1980s trilogy" which is unnecessary. Yeah, I agree the version you readded in is fine. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 05:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the CA Bureau of Investigation

I have no idea why you and a few others keep deleting changes I have made to the California Bureau of Investigation page. I not only have permission to use the gfx I have put on there, but I also know a *great* deal about the agency (I am sure you can guess how). That being said, this is a new wikipedia account for me since I lost the password to my old one and I did mistakenly put the first graphics I uploaded as my own work.

However, I have since corrected those problems and you still reverted my changes (deleting the badge picture, etc.). I have compared my changes to other law enforcement pages on wikipedia and there are no differences (including CA state ones such as CHP). So please tell me what is wrong with it now, because there is no difference. The only thing I can assume is that my changes are being singled out simply because of my initial error when I uploaded. So what's the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policeguy31 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because copyright is a very serious thing around here; the only reason we can have a freely reproducible encyclopedia is by being careful in use of copyrighted material. Without a firm fair use rationale, we can't use the badge image. It is certainly the sort of image that we usually have in law enforcement agency infoboxes, so if we can make sure everything is hunky dory, I'll put it back in myself. oknazevad (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:California Bureau of Investigation logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:California Bureau of Investigation logo.jpg. 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) 17:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series revived after cancellation

Take a look at what's in there – it's a hodgepodge of shows that were cancelled and then revived a few days later (e.g. Timeless (TV series)), and shows that were revived much, much later (e.g. Burke's Law (1963 TV series), Prison Break). Now, whether this should be split into two separate categories, covering the former and the latter separately, is a discussion for WT:TV sometime. But the way the category operates now, Mission: Impossible should be included. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hello, would you be able to offer a third opinion on the discussion page at Talk:Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil#d20? This is in reference primarily to this edit. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commemoration

You'll say that, before linking to it, I should have carried out my intention of expanding the contents of Commemoration in the Catholic liturgy, and I don't deny it. Yesterday, when I set about expanding it, I found you had turned it into a redirect. So today I have instead rewritten the inaccurately titled article Commemoration (prayer), to take account of the fact that the commemoration in question was not a matter of a single prayer, but of three prayers at Mass and of a prayer, an antiphon or two (with versicles) and a reading and perhaps more in the Liturgy of the Hours. I leave it to you to check my work and, if you agree with it, to move the article to a more accurate title and then perhaps adjust accordingly your reverts of yesterday. Meitheamh (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work on the rewrite! Much expanded and improved. I agree, considering it isn't just a single prayer, that the title is insufficient. Maybe Commemoration (Catholic liturgy), which fits the usual conventions for disambiguating titles around here. Let me know what you think and I'll take care of the love and fixing the links. oknazevad (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Commemoration (Catholic liturgy) is OK. The alternatives I can think of may be as good but not better, with the possible exception of the simpler Commemoration (liturgy), in line with many others. In this regard, perhaps Octave (liturgical) should be changed to Octave (liturgy) for uniformity. Meitheamh (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wasn't thinking Commemoration (liturgy) is because it isn't a liturgy, but a liturgical practice. Maybe Commemoration (liturgical) in line with the aforementioned Octave (liturgical) makes the most sense. oknazevad (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commemoration (liturgy) (and octave (liturgy)) are perhaps closer to memorial (liturgy), proper (liturgy), common (liturgy), dismissal (liturgy), secret (liturgy), preface (liturgy), Agnus Dei (liturgy), Tract (liturgy), Gospel (liturgy), anaphora (liturgy), reader (liturgy) than they are to the full liturgies Mass (liturgy) and prime (liturgy). Perhaps there are one or more on the lines of Commemoration (Catholic liturgy) and more than one on the lines of Octave (liturgical), but I can't think of any just now. I don't object to any of the proposals and I leave the choice to you. Meitheamh (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of that list, I think (liturgy) is the best disambiguator. I'll take care of it immediately. oknazevad (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I note that you are keeping Octave (liturgical), not changing it to Octave (liturgy). Meitheamh (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just got busy and didn't get a chance to take care of it. Just did that. All is consistent. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox basketball league

Should we propose merging {{Infobox basketball league}} to {{Infobox sports league}}, or just leave them alone as long as it's not used on the NBA article? My query at Template talk:Infobox basketball league#Infobox sports league has remained unanswered for over 6 weeks, so assume this infobox was created without a broader consensus. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we need to merge them. After all {{Infobox football league}} exists. Heck, I don't even mind using {{Infobox basketball league}} on the NBA article in theory. After all, it would make sense for the world's premier basketball league to use the template for basketball leagues. In fact, I really don't see why using the generic template is a better choice than the sport-specific one anyway. I just object to a unilateral, undiscussed change, one that has been objected to multiple times already. It should be discussed, not imposed by one editor. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roster template

How do I make those changes to the roster template? Kalope (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the top right corner of the template there's a set of abbreviated links reading V-T-E, meaning "View", "Talk" and "Edit", which will bring you to the template page, its talk page, or its edit window. Many templates, such as the navboxes at the foot of an article, have them. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]