User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 16

Active discussions

Rat kingEdit

Hi there.

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

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

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

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

Grand CentralEdit

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

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


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

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


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

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

Precious four years!Edit

Four years!

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

File:TNA Heavyweight Championship.jpegEdit

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

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

File:TNA Heavyweight Championship.jpeg listed for discussionEdit

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

Category:Stand alone filmsEdit

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

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


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

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

The Jim Henson CompanyEdit

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

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


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

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

Mashhad Metro Line 2Edit

Hi there. from Feb 2017 first phase of operation of line 2 was started with 8 kilometers length and 6 station. From Yesterday another station was added. so right now Mashhad has 32 kilometers under operation with 31 stations in 2 lines. last year (2016) more than 38.5 million passenger traveled by line 1. about sources: and there are many more. please email me at if you have any comments or need more information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakestary1363 (talkcontribs) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

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

New Jersey LotteryEdit

Hi Oknazevad,

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

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

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


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

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

Sesame Street listEdit

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

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

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

Busan MetroEdit

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

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

You said it allEdit

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

Template:Major information technology companiesEdit

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

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

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

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

I made a work in progress Template here: It will be what I show when I pitch the idea to the video game wikiproject.Rogue Commander (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I began a discussion for the template on the video game wiki project template here: Feel free to give your own feedback. It would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue Commander (talkcontribs) 22:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

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

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


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

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


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

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

Kōbe Rapid Transit RailwayEdit

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

  • reading Kōbe Rapid Transit Railway article, its nature of underground railway link for suburban/commuter services seems obvious;
  • it doesn't appear in LRTA's list of Light Rail, Light Railway, Tramway & Metro systems throughout the World;
  • doesn't make mention of it in its Kobe page, and in the map of that page, the network belonging to the company is drawn in thin line, among other local railways. (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Prudential Center - Center-hung scoreboardEdit

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

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

Maximum 160 proofEdit

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

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


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

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

Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) - TheOneRing.netEdit

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

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

Federer the Greatest Male court playerEdit

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

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

dogs life / DingoEdit

dogs life is not a University publication secondly the link does not direct the reader to any verifiable information, such a claim really needs to be linked to a verifiable and reliably published scientific article. Gnangarra 13:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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


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

Macallan IS a Speyside distillery, according to the Scottish Whisky regulations as it is located in the Speyside Glenlivet ward of Moray. The legislation can be found here:

the relevant part:

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

also relevant:

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

The entire Speyside region is north of the dividing line and therefore within the Highland whisky region. Speyside distilleries can refer to themselves as either Speyside or Highland or both. Macallan refers to itself as both. (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor of the WeekEdit

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

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

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

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

Oknazevad is a railfan
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning October 29, 2017
An active WP:wikignome and veteran editor since August 2004. Contributions to Wikipedia are diverse, consistent and productive. Rail transport is a topic that interests him. Over 19,000 pages edited with 95% summary use. 77% of his 60K plus edits are in article space. Works toward resolution in any discussion.
Recognized for
Years of productive contributions
Notable work(s)
List of current champions in WWE and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Submit a nomination

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

Congratulations O. Thanks so much for all your efforts here at the 'pedia and enjoy your week! MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks, folks. oknazevad (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of incident which you removed my edit forEdit


I see that you have again reverted my edit for the Short Line Bus entry. In your original remarks you expressed some skepticism concerning media coverage of this incident. Not only did my original edit contain a citation (which you failed to remove when removing the other content), there has been a wide array of media coverage around the incident. It made the 6pm news, not the 11 o clock news.

Here are two more pieces of media coverage. I can find dozens more with a quick google.


Wether you agree with my above assessment isn't really important since your removal of my edit also contradicts the standard for a section existing to document similar incidents and accidents involving bus companies. I can find more if you'd like.


The driver of the bus is being criminally prosecuted and the incident is still covered in the news. As such, I belive including this incident in the article is in the public interest.

I can see that you are a very accomplished editor but I hope the evidence I've provided here can show you why the removal of my edit was in error.

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I thought I had left it, just fixed the date formatting. Must have screwed up. I'll fix it. As for the incident, adding another citation to reinforce the notability won't hurt, especially the one from the Times, as it is considered more reliable than Gothamist (which is still technically a blog, albeit one that is widely respected). oknazevad (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the undoEdit

Seems it was something up with the browser I was viewing it in first. There must be some severely nonstandard code in there for it to be broken completely in some.

EDIT: Wait, actually part of it still is broken. Can you look at what you did again and check on the timeline? I'm so tired I can't figure out what I'm doing lol...

Oh, and it would help to know what article I'm talking about, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball. Gatemansgc (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


FYI, Wikiproject Birds follows the IOC for taxonomy. They use the genus Coloeus which we follow....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Federer being in 11 finals at WimbledonEdit

I don't understand the issue with me adding that he has been in a record 11 finals in the gentleman's singles at Wimbledon, when this is an important stat in supporting the passage that says he is in terms of statistic's the best male grass courter in open the era, I not putting my own views in, I think this is very important to note he is the only man to have been in a Wimbledon final 11 times like it is he has won it 8 times a record in the men's as it is to say Sampras was undefeated in all of his 7 finals these are important numbers to prove how great someone is surely off course without being biased . Amy foster (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy foster (talkcontribs) 20:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

lBecause the article is NOT ABOUT ROGER FEDERER!!!!! There's already enough about him. Stop hijacking the article! oknazevad (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


... for this edit. I actually thought that a semicolon would be better, but just reverted out of, I suppose, laziness. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Sorry about how I kept changing all of the people to the elect what I meant to do in new jersey is to also include the people who got elected and in rye that must have been a mistake on my part because I don't remember deleting the incumbents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metro north (talkcontribs) 03:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"WCW bought the asets of JCP, but was not a continuation of it"Edit

I'd tend to disagree with this - WCW in November 1988 just carried on smoothly with all of JCP's storylines on TV and at the arenas, just as happened six years earlier when Titan Sports bought up the WWF brand and Capitol Wrestling.

Also, regarding "Mid Atlantic" - I'll leave it up to you, but there seems to be an established convention of Wikipedia of refering to versions of a title by the brand rather than by the real life promotional company name - e.g. Detroit version rather than Big Time Wrestling version and Central States Version rather than Heart Of America Sports Attractions version. "JCP" was the equivalent name of BTW or HoA. (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

To the first, it's not a matter of agree or not, as it's a fact that Turner Broadcasting established a new subsidiary to purchase assets of JCP. It was originally called Universal Wrestling Corporation, but renamed World Championship Wrestling, Inc. after the assets of JCP were purchased; JCP actually continued to exist as a separate company after the sale, if only to dispose of non-wrestling assets that Turner didn't buy. That there was no obvious in-story change doesn't change the real world aspect that WCW was not legally the same as JCP. (Fun fact: after Turner sold the WCW assets (name, trademarks, tape library, and championships) to WWF, the subsidiary continued to exist on paper to pay off the contracts that Time Warner was still responsible for. That subsidiary reverted to the Universal Wrestling Corporation name, and may still exist on Time Warner books.) oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but my point was that, onscreen it was just presented as business as usual. Ric Flair was still limbering up for a big Starrcade match with Lex. The Road Warriors were still evil heels running rampage and Dusty and Sting were out for revenge. So were the tweener Midnights who were just one Paul E incident away from completing a babyface turn. Barry Windham was still defending the US belt and he and Ric were allying with the Warriors against both Sting/Dusty and the Midnights (to avenge Tully & Arn). Rick Steiner had now turned babyface and was feuring with his ex Varsity Club compadres. Nothing changed. Same as with the WWF in 1982 which carried on for the next year or so being about Backlund the humble protege of Arnie Sk. versus the Three Wise Men and their latest heel of the month (Snuka at that precise time) You'd hardly have noticed that Capitol was dead and Vinne Jr had bought it out from Dad and the boys. (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Aye, but we write from a real-world perspective, and the fact is the corporate entity was new. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
As for the latter, both regional names and promotion names are used, though at the time the promotion's legal names weren't always known outside the business because of kayfabe. Besides being real-world names, which Wikipedia prefers, JCP was also a well-known brand itself, as in those last years after it expanded beyond the Carolinas and Virginias but before the sale to Turner, it used its name quite extensively alongside the NWA name (and the WCW one, though that was more the tv show than the promotion). So it can go either way, I just saw it as an opportunity to trim a redundant link. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
So in that case, for consistency, should the articles on the Frisco, Detroit, Central States and Toronto US Hwt titles (none of whcih, incidentally were my work!) be renamed? (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME here seems to lean towards no. Again, I'd say JCP is the exception, because of its late history. And the title of the article on its version of the US title doesn't even have the NWA name, unlike the others. Of course that because it actually still exists and is held by Baron Corbin, but I digress. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


Did you read the link? In the late-2000s, the ATSC standards were implemented in the United States which enabled the Diginet phenomenon. New networks were created to take advantage of the new subchanneling technology. Eventually shopping networks came back to terrestrial television via the diginet concept; QVC and HSN are notably on subchannels of Ion owned & operated stations across the United States.

Public Television stations have rebroadcasted International channels (DW, France 24, and NHK)--Template:LA TV has NHK World on KCET 28.4--and there are various ethnic channels (domestic and foreign-origination) in major cities--such as Template:Houston TV has KTBU with 55.4 Apple, 55.5 VIETV, 55.6 VAN-TV, and 55.7 VFTV all in Vietnamese. Take a look at the local TV templates (particularly large markets/cities for international and ethnic), not just the articles, and you can observe these phenomenons. SirChan (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A) Don't copy entire sections of articles to user talk pages. It's annoying. Just put the link.
B) Still doesn't affect the fact that these networks are not exclusive to digital subchannels (see WJLP, which covers the largest market in the country) nor that digital subchannels aren't used only for these networks. Heck, major networks air on digital subchannels in markets where there's not enough over-the-air stations. Leave the more descriptive header. oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Seoul metroEdit

In my latest edits of List of metro system, among which you reverted the last one, I didnt make any comprehensive overhaul that changes the previous consensus on how the city's system(s) should be listed/grouped togheter (i.e., I suppose, what you feared). Conversely, following carefully the existing approach/settings on which the consensus was so laboriously reached (before making any edit, I thoroughly read the archive talk, therefore I know ...), I merely operated some "ordinary maintenance" operations that align data, notes and references to what happened meantime in the real world:

Obviously, I provided reliable sources as reference for both data I updated (number of stations and ridership) and data already up-to-date but without reference (last expansion and lenght) and then I also rearranged (Wikipedia:CITEBUNDLE) the references I had provided in a way that clearly shows how data are obtained following the "consensus guideline on Seoul".

Since nothing of this did alter the substance of the Seoul records (= before my edits, that specific row counted only data about lines 1-9 (Korail sections excluded), and so it did after my edits), I don't think they deserve to be discussed on talk page. (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I do believe you are correct. My bad, looked at the diffs too quickly. Will self-revert. oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine! Thanks for your reply. I'm working at the same "ordinary maintenance" operations for Korail metro lines, again without altering "the substance" (I've even found a good reference for ridership!), which I'll soon add to the page (more likely in multiple edits). (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Chili powderEdit

Dear Oknazevad,

You removed a Mali market picture showing people selling pepper powder with a somewhat harsh comment: does the picture show "incidentally the subject pepper"?? - now look again! It is always better to have a vivid picture showing the human aspect of a subject - you agree? - better than some sacks that only incidentally ;-).... that is why I added the picture. Actually vividly showing the selling of pepper in a market illustrates better. Then there is the African aspect - relatively poor information etc. on Africa on Wikipedia. Most people would agree with both arguments. So think again before deleting and please put the picture back. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's unneeded. The subject of the article is chili powder, not people selling chili powder. oknazevad (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Oknazevad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Grass court article apologyEdit

I do agree that there are enough things on Federer to prove a point about his achievements on grass court, I think the information I was adding you have been deleting has been a little bit unnecessary . I was not really favouritising Federer over any other player on the surface, I do not really think you can have a greatest of all time as you had different generations of players, I have been trying to add information from tennis experts who have considered him the greatest on a grass surface, I mean the people who have said that are ex players like Borg McEnroe and even Pete Sampras ! who has been viewed the best on the grass. But I will not do it again more as it causing problems with you and perhaps the way I was saying it came across as fan biased. I think it is enough the current information as you say as it not all about Roger, like when it says about the stats about his grass court achievements, the reader will be able to work out in their own minds if he is the greatest all not without it actually saying it, I mean as it already says in terms of statistic's he is as he was won more titles than any player but I will leave this alone now as I do not want to be blocked. I am sorry for this, I did not mean to be disrupting. I mean other players before the open era also had good achievements on the grass so it is quite a hard thing to say who is grass court GOAT. I am a Federer fan but it was never my intention to favourite him over anyone else on my personal biases. I can assure you I will leave this article alone now forever !!! Regards Amy foster (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

New York City Subway line namingEdit

You summarized "It's a sting that barb each line has a proper name that begins with the original constructor. So "IRT Lexington Avenue Line", "BMT Nassau Street Line" and "IND Eighth Avenue Line", for example."

So this is what I'm trying to understand. Where does this come from? I find strings like "BMT Nassau Street Line" to be quite rare in books, news, and even web if I suppress wikipedia. In half of the book occurrences, line is not capitalized. Similarly on the others. So why are these "proper names"? Who made them that? Is it a wikipedia thing, or is there a source for this interpretation? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The employee timetables and engineering documents. They're named by the NYCTA. And the names are also posted in every single station on the emergency exit signs. Yes, short forms are used less formally when the full name is not needed, but that doesn't mean the full name doesn't exist; being called "Dick" doesn't mean your full name isn't "Richard". Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is a well explored, well documented area of knowledge, not something that can be reduced to just Google searches. You'd do better by actually reading the Wikipedia articles as sources you can use to inform yourself instead of just looking at them as something that needs fixing constantly. oknazevad (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you're misremembering the format used on the emergency exit signs?
I'm not claiming it doesn't exist. But saying read WP as source is not going to cut it. Are there no published sources on this? We don't usually go by signs and internal specialist documents, but by what something is commonly called in English publications. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The emergency exit signs use a different format, and give no clue to what part of the notation might be considered a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying use Wikipedia as a source. I'm saying use it to familiarize yourself with the subject instead of assuming you know enough to edit in an area you have no experience with. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Great, I'm doing that. But back to my question: what sources support this naming approach, and the idea that it's a proper name? I'm having trouble finding sources, and you removed my citation-needed tag. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, the official documents, easily found at sites such as and the MTA website (the latter mostly in the Capital Construction area, as that's the agency that manages major construction and therefore issues technical documents.)
I don't really get what your goal in this is, though. I seriously find it tiresome when someone who doesn't know much about the subject attempts to impose their idea of consistency. It doesn't make Wikipedia look "more professional", as it chases off editors knowledgeable in the actual subjects, which we need more, not less.
I refuse to play that game anymore. So we capitalize a line name as a proper name when some other sources don't and some do. So what? That just shows that the choice is arbitrary and neither is inherently superior. Our MOS rules are pretty arbitrary choices, too. And far too often have been decided by maybe a half-dozen editors on what is in reality a pretty obscure talk page. Let's be real, guidelines are supposed to guide, not be rigidly applied. And they're supposed to document best practices from throughout Wikipedia,not dictate to the entire site based on the opinions of a half-dozen people. The tail does not wag the dog. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC) PS, the passage you quoted above and originally used for a section title was a case of autocorrect gone wrong. That's pretty obvious. Using the error for a meaningless section title is kind of obnoxious.
I was hoping you'd tell me what the intended text was. A string that ??? maybe? Anyway my goal right now is to find out why NYC subway folks cap these things, when there's not even a cited source in the nomenclature descriptions. It's fine if you don't want to help. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
By the way, neither of site you mention uses those full names much, and both seem free to use lowercase line sometimes in sentences, e.g. with Lexington Avenue line at [2], and even the full BMT 4th Avenue line at [3]. And if the choice is arbitrary, as you say, why not just follow our own house style? Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"legalistic augmentation"Edit


Just so you know, maintenance tags are not "augmentation" and are not meant to be a permanent part of any article. This is why consensus is not generally required to include a maintenance tag in an article. I apologize if I am misinterpreting your edit summary: I have recently had some bad experiences with editors, mostly new ones, demanding that I "get consensus" to "include my maintenance tags in articles", and these may have coloured my interpretation of what you wrote.

I generally apply tags to content that I think does not need augmentation but that I think needs a better source. In this case, I think it's probable that Lucasfilm will stand by their statement that they have no plans to generate digital Leia for Episode IX and will not do so, but the source that was cited in our article was not a valid source for that claim: it was only a valid source for the claim that Lucasfilm posted such a statement on their website eleven months ago.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You recent activity is edit warring. You have reverted two different editors in 3 different edits, [5], [6], and [7]. To say I was bold by adding just shows how little you pay attention. Firstly I did not add. Second in infobox clearly indicated that its about the LLC. Third, you clear don't understand how LLCs work based on your comments a new LLC must be formed when the business is sold. - GalatzTalk 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You did not respond to my comments here at all. That is where - GalatzTalk 12:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!Edit

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! To you as well! oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you!Edit

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! To you as well! oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

9×19mm ParabellumEdit

Hello, You have marked my edit, which was simply adding the link to the corresponding Wikipedia page, as `not in good faith'. Granted that you might disagree with the necessity of adding the link, would you please explain how this qualifies for `not in good faith'? It is indeed very common to have multiple links to the same page in one given entry. The simple reason being that people refer to a Wikipedia page and do not necessarily read all of it. A.alisz (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to blame autocorrect for that one. It was not my intention to call your edit not in good faith, but to actually say it was a good faith edit. It was still unneeded, as the company is already linked in the previous paragraph, but I didn't mean to make any such accusations. Please accept my apology. oknazevad (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 in professional wrestlingEdit

Note, we are having a conversation here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#2017 in professional wrestling on the topic. I noticed your edits so please feel free to join in the conversation. - GalatzTalk 15:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Was making the edits in response to the posting. The other edits (and edit warring!) clearly go against multiple content and style guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Oknazevad/Archive 16".