User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 13

Active discussions

Mission: Impossible III creditsEdit

Please note that the credits I've edited were what were listed in the opening credits all the way up to Lawrence Fishburne. The credits are then repeated at the end of the film, in three sections. The first section repeats the opening credits names with their character names. The second section adds the three names as "With" and then the third section lists a whole pile of names under "And in order of appearance". If you want to retain any of the names in the third section, then you'll have to add about 30 names to the cast list. You sure you want to do that? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you need further proof of the credits order, the movie is currently available on the Showtime On Demand services, and also confirmed on the Extreme Blu-Ray Trilogy which also has the first two films. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I have the DVD. That's not the issue. The issue is that speaking parts should be listed, even if just as brief text at the end of the section. oknazevad (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Well it's still 30 names that don't show much notability. See WP:CASTLIST first point about how it should only list prominent actors. But if you want those 30 actors posted, then I've thrown them in the embedded note on the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin Green PartyEdit

Your edit at contains what IMO is uncivil language in the edit comment and IMO has disrupted the article page for which page protection has been requested, and where a decision is awaited.  I request that you revert yourself.  I also suggest that you review WP:TPO.  There is a possibility that an editor is making edits while logged out to avoid a direct interpretation that the editor is abusing the edit warring policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't make that edit. I think you made an error. Additionally, that edit contains no edit comment at all. oknazevad (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, you said that the editor was "incompetNt" [sic].  FYI, I've made a page protection request at WP:RFPP, so I'm withdrawing my request that you self-revert.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, that the wrong diff, then. As for the typo'd "incompetent", that's a specific reference to WP:COMPETENT, and not uncivil. ANI is a legitimate place to question the competency of an edit, which is what I did. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I expect if you work on it some more you will identify who made that diff.  I'm following up here because there is a further problem from this same edit, see [1] .  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure what more you want me to do here. There are certainly eyes on the issue, and the person who did make the offending redaction of others comments is being watched. As for the request for page protection, it was based on someone demanding protection because others were removing speedy deletion tags when the user was disruptively restoring them against the correct procedure for using them. In other words, the protection request was completely inappropriate and improper, and shouldn't have been brought to RFPP in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The request for page protection was not because of speedy deletion tags.  I'm not happy that you don't take responsibility for your action, but I'm not looking for you to do anything at this point.  People have worked around the two problems.  I made a new request at RFPP, and here is where HW cites the same diff at ANI that I gave at the start of this section.  So it is not just me telling you that there was a problem with your edit.  I hope we are done here without there being any ill feelings.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I do take responsibility for my edit, and I'm not here to make you happy, so frankly I don't care for your tone. I just disagree that it was an issue, as it was not a good faith protection request, as the editor has far too much experience to not know better. oknazevad (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toronto Argonauts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | owner = [[Larry Tanenbaum|Kilmer Sports]] and [[Bell Canada]] consortium)<ref name=pr>{{cite news|date=2015-05-20|accessdate=2015-05-20|title=Bell Canada and Kilmer Group

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Rams Move to LAEdit

Ticketmaster has released stubs plus all other sources indicating Rams to LA Coliseum --MarcusPearl95 (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's this (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The latter doesn't actually state the deal is set. And Ticketmaster sells tickets in advance even if the event is later cancelled. At one point they actually sold tickets for a "Hamilton Predators" game when it looked like Jim Basille was going to buy and move the Nashville Predators. The other NHL owners scoffed, in part because they were offended by Basille's presumptiousness, resulting in him never getting a team. So I put no stick in a Ticketmaster page for ticket sales. Until it is confirmed by the club and stadium that everything is set, it is not official. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorting ring namesEdit

I actually agree with what you did for Sgt. Slaughter. If you see any others, go ahead and do what you feel is necessary, just let me know. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I could use a handEdit

I think I might need a character witness. RGloucester started a thread complaining about Dicklyon and myself over at AE. It was promptly hijacked by SMcCandlish with a long screed of accusations, half-truths and non-truths. I could use someone to put in a word for me. None of the admins will answer any of my questions or requests for specifics. If you're not comfortable with this, I get it. If you go over there and say you agree with any of what SmC has to say, I get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How did I miss this? I just noticed it now. Sadly, it's a fait accompli, which I am sorry to see. I would have, as I know that SMc's obstinate longwindedness tires out people to the point the just let him do whatever so they don't have to read his tldr stuff. Frankly, you were the one actually bringing sources and reason, while he was just dismissing anything you said with as much bloviating as possible. Frankly, it was pretty much a boomerang situation. And don't get me started on RGloucester. I am amazed that that obnoxious twit was ever let back on after some of the crap he's pulled. (When an editor goes off the rails and moves my user page because I was part of a consensus that was quite clearly against him, I think he's forever worn out his welcome with me.) oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Ok, so I saw the whole format part of the talk page, and the combined reigns list includes the dagger, and you were like "Ok looks good to me" and everybody is like "Use the dagger". So do we use it or no? Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plexicushion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic. 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) 09:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Teennage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Main Characters section)Edit

I can't seem to understand. What's wrong with adding headers for the characters? I mean there are other pages on this site that adds headers for characters. Also, if you wanted it to be in alphabetical order, why can it be all the characters and not just the turtles? DonJakes(talk)

Talk:The UndertakerEdit

I would just like to point out that it is important to remain calm and civil when dealing with matters such as disruptive edits over at The Undertaker, "written by a barely literate middle schooler" isn't exactly civil, I thought I would try to give you a heads up as this matter gets resolved as I wouldn't like to see a very active editor get in trouble. YellowStahh (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The key words in my statement were "sounds like". It's a criticism of the writing, not the person, so it remains on this side of civil. I've been here a long time, never had any trouble staying on the right side of collaborative. oknazevad (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Athens Metro TicketsEdit

You're right, but you didn't have to remove all the section's content, so I restored it but I removed the prices. Have a nice Sunday. Dimsar01 (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfAEdit

  Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hershey Bears logo.gifEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Hershey Bears logo.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Elisfkc (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

TNA moveEdit

There is nothing controversial about the move. They do not have wrestling in their name, nor are they commonly known as Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Its a standard move which you had several days to comment on. - GalatzTalk 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Two days is not sufficient. That's why WP:RM is seven days. And that's why it also is used, so as to notify the appropriate projects and editors, none of which you did. In other words, you threw it out there, and barely waited.
As for the actual name, you might want to look at the logo that's actually on the page. Or the title belts. Or the website. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Purple LineEdit

Your edits to the purple line (Norristown high speed line) are simply not true. A) It IS known as the purple line, the same way the broad street line is called the orange line, and the market-frankford line is known as the blue line. If you believe it does not belong in the title, that is fine, but it should somewhere be referenced that it is called the purple line. I live in Philadelphia and use the purple line every day, and NOBODY calls it the Norristown High Speed Line. Everyone calls it the Purple Line for use of simplicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources? What you hear people call it while walking down the street is insufficient. Personally, I don't know anyone who calls them by their map color, so clearly we have a conflict of anecdotes, which is exactly why we need sources. As it stands, it using the name used in the most available sources. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Purple Line does go into Philadelphia. If you knew ANYTHING about it, you would refer to its schedule. Clearly, the tracks go from Upper Darby through West Overbrook. In fact, Township Line Road station used to called West Overbrook station because it served (drumroll, please) West Overbrook! I'm aware that the station is on the Delaware County side of the line, however it is undeniable that the Purple Line serves Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Transit in Metropolitan Baltimore NavBoxEdit

Please stop following my transportation edits and contributions. Baltimore is in need of additional transit information on Wikipedia, and my intentions are to expand the dominion of transit beyond MTA (who isn't responsible for many of the metropolitan county transit agencies). The MTA Maryland navigational box has too much information as it is, so it makes more sense to have a higher level navbox for metropolitan area transit articles. Also, your claim that WMATA does not interact with Metro Baltimore is wrong. WMATA has many commuter bus lines that travel to Anne Arundel/Howard Counties, being that both regions are interconnected. Finally, transit incorporates all forms of transportation, giving way to the term multi-modal transportation options. If you really find this box "redundant", I would suggest you open a dialog for editing the MTA Maryland NavBox, since it's poorly organized and doesn't follow a national standard.Scott218 (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Following you? I haven't edited that box in nearly a month! oknazevad (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello Oknazevad. Looking through your contributions, including your most recent one, I noticed that you warn vandals manually. I used to do this myself; it eventually becomes rather tedious. Have you ever considered installing WP:TWINKLE? It makes warning vandals (as well as nominating articles for speedy deletion, reporting usernames and vandals to admins etc.) ten times easier around here. It is what may be colloquially referred to as a lifesaver. Let me know if you are unsure of how to set it up. Ches (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried it some time back, and frankly, being I edit on my smart phone a lot, it doesn't do me very good. I have no trouble editing manually. In fact, outside of an occasional use of dabsolver or hotcat (probably totaling less than 100 edits), every single one of my 40,000+ edits has been manual. I actually take a certain amount of pride in that. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - I occasionally use mine to edit, also, as being the Wikipediholic that I am, I use it if I am unable to access a computer. It is annoying that Twinkle doesn't work on mobiles. I'm impressed though, you have a right to take pride in that! Ches (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, after 12 years, the edits were bound to build up.   oknazevad (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Twelve years is an incredibly long time, fair play. I would've been four back then... don't get many Wikipedia editors that age, do we? Haha. Ches (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


It might have been better to try to resolve the spelling question at George Dickel where it came up first, rather than hopping over to systematically change the spelling at Maker's Mark after I mentioned that article in an edit summary. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I was doing both simultaneously. Anyway, I checked the Maker's Mark edit history, and it did consistently spell it with the e, except where noting that the label omits it, until this anonymous edit. It was an old error that snowballed over time. Either way, it's the standard spelling when referring to bourbon and Tennessee whiskeys, so it should be retained except for brand names. oknazevad (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Main Line (NJ Transit)Edit

Hello. I was just reviewing the RfC at this article. Can you please provide a status update in relation to the broader proposal you were going to make? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Re: revert. While the position of Vice Commandant has been approved for an increase to a four star rank, it has not taken effect yet. As you can see, the current Vice Commandant of the United States Coast Guard is still a Vice Admiral. While it's one thing to note the change in the law, wholesale changes to USCG and US military rank related articles may cause confusion for readers. - theWOLFchild 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Maybe a footnote, along the lines of "The Vice Commandant position was approved to become a 4-star position in 2015, but the current holder of the office is still a 3-star admiral as of 2016". That'd cover it, I think. oknazevad (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. - theWOLFchild 22:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  Done oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverts on MegabusEdit

Please do not engage in edit warring. I agree that the content you removed, as written, may not be the optimal result; wholesale removal is not the answer IMO. I'm happy to work to find a consensus on what sourced content to include on Megabus (North America) and how to phrase it. Please restore the removed content and open a discussion on the talk page. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I was actually just applying the same standard at that article that is used on Greyhound Corporation and other transportation company articles. The items were added despite long-standing consensus to keep the items listed to fatal ones or others that have a lasting impact. Ones that just make the local news and then are forgotten about are a combination of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. They're just not significant and don't add to the article. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard AuxiliaryEdit

As a current or past contributor to a USCG article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

COASTIE I am (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

UWW grapplingEdit

I am sure that the sport of grappling is currently recognized by the UWW. You can check on the official website of the UWW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it appears they have resumed sanctioning events using amended rules that differ somewhat from their old ruleset but are still in the same general realm. I cleaned up the link a bit. As for the previous reverts, I apologize. I distinctly remember it being big news when they dropped it two and a half years ago, so that they resumed without any fanfare surprised me tremendously. Of course, had you provided a source, this would have been much easier. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Those tables at Anarchy that you removed were not un-sourced. They were just tabular representations of the text by them. Is there a rule against that? I really don't know. Please educate me. I was just adding material to make it easier for readers to understand the topic. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, text is preferred to charts. I would recommend reading the manual of style to get an idea of how articles are supposed to be written. oknazevad (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Bergen Performing Arts Center page is all factually incorrect and needs editingEdit

The information on the Bergen Performing Arts Center page is all factually incorrect. The size of the theater is incorrect. The ownership is incorrect. The Garden State Plaza information is not correct. The website section doesn't have a valid website. You will not allow corrections nor will you allow the history of the theater or the mission statement of the theater or a picture of theater be placed on the page. Nor will you allow the Facebook page, the Instagram page, or correct information to be placed on the page. Attempts to copy other like-theaters with almost exact content are not allowed by you. How is this page any different:

How do you suggest the page can become factual when the edits were made to follow the NJPAC format in the example above but you said they are promotional? As of now, anyone looking at the page will get ALL factually incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If there are corrections to be made, suggest them on the talk page. As a clear case of someone affiliated with the theatre, that is the only acceptable solution, per our conflict-of-interest guideline. Also, copying the mission statement verbatim into the article is just not allowed on any level. It is not neutrally worded, and it is a copyright violation. As for the external links, we try to keep those to a minimum, so only the official link is allowed, not social media links; readers can reach those through tho official website.
But the big problem here is not me, it's you, as we have very specific and clear procedures for editing on behalf only one's employer. Wikipedia does not exist to promote anything g, just describe. Your edits have been decidedly promotional, and are unacceptable. Please, if there are any corrections you wish to have made, mention them on the talk page. Do not make them yourself, as that is against guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I made suggested corrections but the page has remained the same. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Propose how it should be worded. And make sure to include sources for these (as your working there is not a proper source). Do that and it should be easily fixed. oknazevad (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary sectorEdit

It's not necessary to have a discussion before tagging. The point of tagging is to start a discussion.Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

When you tag, you should start the section yourself explaining why you think they should be merged. Otherwise it's just pointless drive-by tagging. oknazevad (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Captain N: The Game Master episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

POV PushingEdit

Hack job? Please explain why you reverted all my edits at pit bull. You restored citations to dead links, and advocacy sites. What's your purpose in doing that? Jehochman Talk 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The dead links were updated. And the supposed "advocacy sites" are pretty darn neutral. More importantly, you didn't make an effort to mark or repair the dead link (which took only a few minutes), instead just removing the information. All on an article you had no prior involvement with, one that has been contentious before and is very strongly sourced based on some of the most rigorous sourcing guidelines we have (like WP:MEDRS). I do not see the need to remove any of the material you removed, nor do I think your tag is appropriate, and a bit pointy. oknazevad (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You don't own the article. Anybody is free to contribute. Jehochman Talk 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one using a WP:FRINGE blog to denigrate something that clearly passes WP:RS. And, no, you are not allowed to push a POV just because you don't like what the reliable sources say. oknazevad (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Westchester County AirportEdit

Hi, I noticed that you've undone this edit stating that it is a different kind of service. I've had a look of the airlines that operate these flights and actually you're right. Anyway, do you confirm that these are only executive flights and not usual scheduled flights? Just to change the headline. Thanks ;) Wjkxy (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, these are scheduled charters, which is a class of flights, as defined by the FAA. They are technically charter flights where the cost is split between the milultiple chartering passengers (who are preregistered clients of the company), flown at times predetermined by the operator (hence the "scheduled" in the name). They are subject to far less TSA screening of passengers (as they're pre-screened when they register), so they're popular with executives who want the lower hassle but don't want to spend the money to charter an entire flight themselves. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I didn't know this kind of service because in Italy we don't have an exact definition for these corporate flights, we call it just general aviation Wjkxy (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

John WilliamsEdit

John Williams has not officially been confirmed to conduct and compose music for the upcoming Star Wars: Episode VIII, but I still see him on the infobox of the movie page with the Empire Online article as a reliable source. Could you please give me a better explanation about how he is really going to compose and conduct the music for the upcoming movie? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a reliable source saying that he's going to do it? Seriously, what more do you want? oknazevad (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that you should remove him from the page until there's a better reliable source saying that he's going to do it. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No. There is not going to be a better reliable source than the most respected film magazine in Britain. That's why I disagree with you completely. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I just wanted to thank you for clarifying that the recent edit concerning "westling" was correct instead of "wrestling" in regards to what may be the title of that championship. Not being familiar with the wrestling scene and I did not want to jump to conclusions and make a mistake.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sports in MissouriEdit

I just wanted to let you know that I undid one of your revisions to Sports in Missouri about Sporting KC. I copied the style found in Sports in New York about teams that represent a metro area mostly within one state put play in another. In this case Sporting also has HQ on the Missouri side so it seemed logical to list them the same way. Also there was a discussion (albeit against one user) on Talk:Major League Soccer#Sporting Kansas City Location. It seemed like a pretty simple solution to me since the majority of fan base lies within MO. Yosemiter (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I took part in that conversation. Mollifying one edit warrior who apparently has a grudge against stating the plain fact that Sporting KC plays in KCK is no reason to misstate that SKC is located in Kansas, not Missouri. Mention it in text, but don't include it in the chart of teams in Missouri. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Then we should also remove the Giants, Jets, and Red Bulls from Sports in New York. Yosemiter (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


I'm the one that started describing the belts via an image. I fought a long hard battle, only for it to be proven at GA that doing so is Original Research. You got a consensus against you already.--WillC 11:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I really don't care what the hell the GA reviewers have to say, to be honest. Their robotic in their application of their self-appointed rules and lack the obvious common sense regarding sourcing. I've seen it in relation to many articles, not just wrestling ones, though the latter is where they demand we insult the intelligence of our readers and restate the common knowledge that pro wrestling is scripted in every fucking article. So, yeah, I think they lack common sense and don't give a hoot what they have to say. oknazevad (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Common sense is overrated. Logic and reason are more important than this idea that common sense can save one in any situation. In new situations, common sense fails. You can be upset that the majority are against you and that when it comes down to it you physically have to examine something to get material is the definition of original research.--WillC 15:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for making the revision to brick; I understand your rationale, but I do think the section on Types of Brick should precede Manufacture of brick since it actually introduces some of the terms that are seen later. bricktrimble — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricktrimble (talkcontribs) 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right on that. That switch would be fine. But leave the history first. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:NBA pollEdit

Regarding your comment about polls and !vote, there is also Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. At any rate, I don't think anyone rebutted my points, but I can also accept that there is no consensus for my viewpoint.    Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Atlantic League logo.pngEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Atlantic League logo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I fixed the SVG file to have the cross-stitching. I fixed it because Wiki prefers SVG to PNG when available. And it was an easy fix. But thanks for noticing the incorrect logo! — trlkly 17:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I'd have done it myself, but my svg-fu is weak. oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Rotational or reciprocal?Edit

"Reciprocal indicates two different figures that resemble each other when rotated". If it's "when rotated", why is it not "rotational" symmetry? Do you have a reference that explains this odd terminology? Urhixidur (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the "reciprocal" part that's important. The fact that a 6 and a 9 look like each other when rotated. "Rotational" symetry means something that looks like itself when rotated. That's why its not the correct term to use. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. The original sentence still needs to explain that the reciprocal symmetry is achieved through rotation (because having reciprocal symmetry through reflection would not be a problem). Maybe "Numerals that are reciprocally symmetric by rotation, like 6 and 9..."? Urhixidur (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
That's work. oknazevad (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


I got rid of him for you, might want to SPI. Mitch32(I can have oodles of charm when I want to.) 22:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I filed an AIV. That should be sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I took care of it. If he's a sockpuppet though, it should've been dealt with an SPI. Mitch32(I can have oodles of charm when I want to.) 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually looking to have the pages semi-protected, as much as having the obvious socks blocked, because he keeps coming back with new socks after a couple of days. Semi'd oages can't be edited by non-confirmed users, so it'd break his ability to get the immediate jollies of vandalizing the pages. Also, being that he keeps repeat vandalizing the same articles in rapid succession (look at the edit histories) and SPI takes a few days, a more immediate solution was needed that taking him to SPI. That's why I didn't bother. It was the immediate repeat vandalism that was the problem, not the socking. That the accounts are obvious socks that can be immediately indeffed without issue is secondary. The whole WP:NOTBURO thing comes to mind. oknazevad (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Whisky, beer, distilled spirits chartEdit

Hi there! I saw you reverted my insertion of an image. You mentioned there were errors. Care to elaborate? I work at a distillery and many people ask me for information of that kind; I'll have to find (or create) a better chart but I'd like to hear your detailed concerns. Thanks CircularReason (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I placed my comments at the talk page of the file on wikicommons. To summarize, the chart is full of numerous factual errors. Firstly, bourbon is a type of whiskey, so separating it out is false; not all whiskey is made from barley, and in fact the majority of the whiskey in the world is only part barley at most. Similarly, Congac is a type of brandy and defined by its origin; not all brandy made from white grapes is Congac (and indeed, no brandy other than ones from the Congac region are Congac, even if they're made with white grapes). Gin does not involve the fermentation of juniper berries at all; they're added to a preexisting spirit which is then redistilled to impart the flavor (or flavor extract is added to vodka) and other botanicals are usually present. Sake is not distilled like the other entries. And apple jack is made using a different process; distilled cider is properly apple brandy. These errors made the chart more harmful than helpful. oknazevad (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Sorry for that on the Ninja Turtle page, apparently when I was navigating I inadvertently hit the rollback button on the page. Thanks for changing it back! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

S'okay. Happens. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

T-Mobile USEdit


you called my change regarding the ownership of T-Mobile US BS. Have a look here: Reuters The German Wikipedia page shows that T-Mobile International as company was dissolved in 2007: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the BS was a typo from. My edit summary getting cut off. I appologize if you took offense at that . What I was going to say, is that a) it needs a source, b) the main T-Mobile article then needs to be updated with the new structure. As it stands, I think this is one of those cases where it's mostly paperwork shuffling, though, as either way it's still mostly held by DT's wireless unit, however that is structured. oknazevad (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Air Service at TEBEdit

Hello, after reviewing your most recent edit on TEB Airport, I wanted to clarify a recent WP:Airports policy. You were absolutley correct that JetSmarter was an unscheduled charter and I confirmed that AirNet Express has ended flights. Thank you for removing it (especially on a small airport page like this!) However, there is a difference between scheduled and unscheduled charters. Scheduled charters are also know as commuter flights and are supposed to be listed on airport destination tables. The difference is these flights operate on <30 seat aircraft in order to bypass FAA Commercial Airline regulations but operate essentially the same otherwise. Ultimate Air Shuttle is one of these airlines and I would have reverted your edit, however just today Ultimate delayed the launch due to logistical problems with aircraft scheduling. I see that you are not a frequent aviation editor, so I know you probably are not aware of WP:Airports regulations, so I understand that you had no way of knowing this. I hope that explanation makes sense and let me know if you have any questions! Thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought scheduled charters are not supposed to be listed, as they are still charters. And the term "commuter flight" is a more general term than scheduled charters. As for my knowledge of WP:AIRPORT guidelines (not "regulations", which don't exist on Wikipedia, let alone at a single-project), I've read them, and been part of the discussions at the talk page multiple times, so I wouldn't say I'm unaware. Indeed, as I said, I thought I was sticking to the guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for reviewing my additions to the metro-north article, however deleting them all in their entirety was unjustified. The current signal system explanation is simplified and vague. The definition of ATC varies from railroad to railroad, as does its implementation. The same is true of cab signals. It is important to note that in the short existence of Metro-North, it has undergone radical technological change, notably in its signalling and train control. Other than the actual trains, nothing has changed technologically more drastically than its signal/train control systems. Rather than delete the enhancements and additions to the signal system section in their entirety, perhaps you can suggest a different method of presentation. Or, perhaps you might be interested in assisting me with creating a new page on metro-north train control, signalling, etc. Would appreciate guidance on "formatting errors"

Finally, I would like to restore the inclusion of the Amtrak derailment on Metro-north territory. While the train itself wasn't the property of Metro-North, the incident is notable because of the amount of damage caused to metro-north property, the impact to service as a result of a full service suspension the day of the accident, the involvement of Metro-North employees (including the section Rail Traffic Controller), and because the train was running under the authority of Metro-North rules, Metro North Timetable & Operating Instructions. Empirestatephil (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

For the first part, I'd recommend looking at the manual of style, As for the level of detail, I just think it was a little too detailed for an overview article. Some of the material should be included, certainly, but I think it needs editing down a bit. As it was, it read a little too much like a guide for teaching a training class on the material, which is something that rail articles have had a issue with over the years here (rail fans, and I'm including myself here, are typically technical detail-oriented folks, so they often have trouble finding an appropriate level of detail for a general-interest encyclopedia).
As for the Amtrak derailment, I can see where you're coming from. It is worth mentioning, but its impact on Metro-North, and to what extent Netro-North personel are responsible (making sure to source that explicitly) should be made clearer. oknazevad (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Green sea turtlesEdit

I got an e-mail that this account was vandalizing the green sea turtles page or whatever it was, but i don't know why im getting these messages because i'm oretty sure that i javent been on the Wikipedia page for editing anything. Yaoming7.5 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit is clearly vandalism. If you did not make the edit, then someone else did while logged in as you. It's possible, so I'd advise being careful about leaving a public computer logged in when you are done. Not the first time I've heard of such a thing. oknazevad (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community SurveyEdit

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello/ External LinksEdit

I recently tried to add a couple of external links to an article so I could help users navigate to the noted websites easier. This has been done before and I was merely adding the els to the other headings to complete the article. I just noticed that you undid my edit. Since I am new to editing on Wiki can you explain why you did this.Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the guideline at WP:EL. Usually, external links belong in a dedicated section at the end of the article, not in the body text. The links themselves are appropriate, but they don't belong where they were. oknazevad (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you for explaining and fixing the mistake! (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello Oknazevad,

I noticed your message during a revert used the word "prattling". The meaning of this term is to "to talk in a foolish or simple-minded way". When you have a moment, please take a look at WP:CIVIL and try to be a little more respectful toward your fellow editors. Thank you! :-) Praemonitus (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, but the tag was overkill. I also really don't see what your issue with the word "varying" is. The level of magic and technology varies between settings. It's just the best word. oknazevad (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I think we're just looking at it from different perspectives. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling DisclaimerEdit

You, of course, were right. I guess those guys spend 12 hours a day on wrestling articles, so they think they own them and can ignore minor issues such as zero consensus. Thanks for your input. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Unincorporated communities in New JerseyEdit

If you look at the edit history for Fair Play, New Jersey, I had turned the article into a redirect, not unlike what you did. But if you're referring to previous discussions as a justification for your actions, the consensus at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair Play, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coxs Corner, Monmouth County, New Jersey was rather clear that such articles are notable and should exist. Per this consensus and per WP:BRD, your changes will be reverted. If you intend to pursue this line of argument, I suggest that you start talkpage discussions to change this rather clear consensus. In terms of whether these places should be called "unincorporated communities" or neighborhoods, a similar discussion should take place to overturn established consensus. Regardless of the terminology to be used, there is no justification for removing the links at the Franklin Lakes, New Jersey article. Alansohn (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The only mention of prior discussion I made, if you actually pay attention to my edit summaries, was that prior consensus was to remove the large volume of pointless stubs created by dumping the GNIS data from the Bergen county navbox. That's the only time I refered to prior discussion. As for the redirects, prior discussion clearly agreed that a stub that has only a GNIS entry (or its mirrors, which is what the Google maps entries and NJ placename database are) show no actual evidence of notability. The GNIS by its nature is an indiscriminate list that makes no distinction between facilities, geological features, and actual communities, and does not in any way establish sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Note that I didn't remove other unincorporated communities from the navbox, nor render them as redirects, if there were other sources. But a GNIS entry does not establish notability. Period. Indeed, the database is full of genuine errors, listing as separate places the exact same location under multiple names because of name changes over time. Personally I not only think that it doesn't establish notability, but that's it's not even a reliable source. But that's just me. Theocrat that it doesn't establish notability is, however, agreed upon, as seen here, a discussion with clear consensus that these sorts of stubs should be redirected to the appropriate town. That's all I was doing, a much delayed follow up on the consensus. oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion you point to was a discussion, and nothing more than that. I have pointed to two different AfDs that addressed the exact issue and where rather clear consensus was that these places do merit articles, whether you (or I) like it. Note that at the discussion you point to, you largely concurred with points that I made, but I recognize that consensus supports these articles and I support that consensus; No consensus to delete these articles exists and the two AfDs are rather clearly saying the opposite. Take a look at WP:BRD: you've been bold and you will be reverted a second time. Before you proceed further, you need to start a discussion and obtain consensus that places such as Campgaw, New Jersey should *NOT* have an article Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I read clear consensus that the article should be a redirect. Not deletion, but a redirect. Big difference. One indicates that it is utterly unworthy of an article, some made up junk. The second indicates that it lacks independent notability and should be mentioned as part of the larger whole. There is certainly consensus for that in the discussion and in multiple prior edits when this whole issue dusted up. In short, I already have a consensus. Just missed a few when making the edits last year after the discussion.
Frankly, the know-nothing's who created these useless stubs by dumping a database with no context are the real problem. They claim that they're "trying to build an encyclopedia" through this mess (clearly insinuating that those who oppose uninformed database dumps as a method for article creation are not trying to build one) they rise to a level of obnoxiousness that frankly is insulting.
But most importantly, no one has ever actually satisfied the serious concerns of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR raised by the discussion. They certainly weren't addressed in Altus AFDs (which I would note pre-date the discussion, so fall under a WP:CCC issue). The GNIS is most definitely indiscriminate, error-prone, and the sole source on these stubs (as noted, repeatedly, the NJ place names listing is a mirror and not a separate confirming source). oknazevad (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've raised many of these same issues and the position has been rejected. If you look at the history for Fair Play, New Jersey, as one example of many, I also converted articles to redirects, but these didn't meet consensus and the articles exist to this day as standalones. Between GNIS and the New Jersey locality search, we have a foundation to create and build these articles. I'm not elated to see a laundry list of stubs, but these stubs have a history of growing into more complete articles. Any issues with errors in any source needs to be addressed, but the mere existence of errors doesn't invalidate GNIS as a source. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
But that's my point. No one has ever proven the independence of the NJ locality search. It's identical to the GNIS list, likely a locally hosted mirror. That's why I don't think these have enough to go on; they don't have multiple, independent sources to corroborate existence. It comes back to really needing to prove long-term significance, not just that the name appeared once in a map over a century ago and didn't stick. I know that you don't disagree with that. Nor did the others who participated in the later discussion. That's the most recent one, and the one I've been using as my guide. oknazevad (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No one needs to prove the independence of the sources, but the two clearly don't overlap; Even the most superficial review will show that they aren't a match. As you pointed out elsewhere, Notability is not temporary. The two AfDs reached a rather clear consensus that these stubs should exist. The later discussion, where I participated, was a discussion that said that we should develop a standard; No such standard was settled on as part of that discussion. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop editEdit

This is your only warning. Vince McMahon is recognized as Mr. McMahon in WWE Championship history. If you are wrong that hear that, you had better watch this. non-formatted text here--Shinkazamaturi (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't parrot the damn corporate line with "Mr. McMahon" around here, never have. So, no, you cease pushing a pointless edit hat has no consensus and never did. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad is correct please see WP:Common Name. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing the warnings we issued doesn't make them go away either Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep I missed oneEdit

Thanks for catching that I missed it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Wonder why some people were so hot to make the change tonight. I missed Raw. We're people over reacting to the use of the obvious short name? Again? oknazevad (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WWE World Heavyweight Championship and McMahonEdit

Can you please post something to the talk page instead of doing a straight-up revert? It's easier for admins to cut down on the edit warriors if there's discussion on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 05:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I did post something on there with the source to the WWE site showing the right name. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I just added a simple consensus question on there about the McMahon deal. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to CP System may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | [[Quiz game]]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Oknazevad/Archive 13".