User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 23

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Grand Central Terminal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hudson Yards.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gladstone Branch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steeplechase.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Conrail commuter rail

Regarding [1], my understanding is that Conrail did briefly continue the Youngstown operation, and that's what Cleveland commuter rail says at the moment. Ditto the Valpo operations, which Amtrak doesn't assume until '79. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that neither of those services were part of Conrail's off-loading of commuter services in 1983, which is what the section is about. Also, there's no connection between the Valpo Local and Metra, so that was incorrect regardless (not to mention the poor style and lack of proper capitalization).

Some mention could be made, but they should be distinguished from the 1983 group, which has much more in common; all were already heavily subsidized and using state-owned equipment, each was independently branded, and the respective agencies really called the shots, with Conrail acting as a contract operator. The only real difference was that the crews now worked directly for the various agencies, and some trackage ownership was transferred, though not as much as some think, as a lot of the tracks already were owned by the states. oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oknazevad, understood. I rewrote the section to make the distinction clearer. Could do with expansion, but probably best in our non-existent article about the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Complain

Why are you editing out two Catholic Bibles from the list of Catholic Bibles, viz. New Community Bible (2008), and New Catholic Bible-Saint Joseph Edition (2019)? Go to google, study articles on them. These two Bible editions are authorised by the Catholic Church. A Constantine Winchester (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Because they're unreferenced additions with no evidence of notability. oknazevad (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing my formatting issue, I'm very new to wiki editing! Bigfreesample (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Transcluding MFD

Hi,

You didn't transclude Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, Sport, And Science into the MFD page. I've done that now. And also, thanks for nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The steps always mess me up. oknazevad (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE is a big help. -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

really

Can I ask an honest question?

Why are you so devoted to following Wiki policy to the letter?

At the end of the day, it's all just meaningless words.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it's the only thing that keeps this place honest and functioning, instead of a POV-pushing free for all. Now cut the crap. You know better that there's an RFC ongoing. You opened it! oknazevad (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This place isn't honest and barely functions...every editor has a POV, and there is no such thing as neutral, and don't you scold me...who are you to scold me? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll scold you if you act out of line. And you are. So kindly knock it off. And don't bother responding here. I give up on you being a productive contributor. You clearly don't get it. oknazevad (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not your place to scold anybody...nobody died and made you the gatekeeper of Wikipedia, so I suggest you knock off your attitude. Vmlhds (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nah, bro. You clearly violate policies, any one can tell you to knock it off. You don't get to just ignore them because you don't like them. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, when I say "don't bother to respond here", that means don't post on this talk page again, because I don't feel like getting frustrated with your unwillingness to act collaboratively. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Collaborative means do it your way right, because oknazevad is the greatest Wikipedia editor of all time and is so much better than little old Vjmlhds, right? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but Oknazevad is absolutely right. You might not like Wikipedia policy (honestly, why are you here?) but that doesn't give you the right to ignore it and impose your edits on an article just because your RfC isn't going the way you want it to. — Czello 14:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cocoa solids

added a link pointing to Cocoa

Dutch process cocoa

added a link pointing to Cocoa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Garden State Plaza

Hi, Okanazevad. I know you're a veteran editor, so I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but as you know, adding uncited material to an article, even if it's to update recent developments in the topic, as you did with Garden State Plaza, is not permitted by WP:V, WP:NOR, et al. If you want to update the paragraph, that's perfectly fine, of course, but the proper way to do it is to add the latest development after the previous one, and accompany it with a supportive citation of a source. Feel free to re-add your update if you can do so in adherence to those guidelines. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I thought it was covered by the second source. The November opening date was already in the article, I just moved it up because announcements are not notable, the actual even is. oknazevad (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion at Wiktionary

See wikt:en:Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#Major League Baseball -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

So the link was malformed, and the entry hadn't been tagged. My bad. oknazevad (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed my notification, with the corrected discussion link (my bad), and indicating that the tagging is missing at Wiktionary. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have no personal opinion on the matter, being unfamiliar with wiktionary's policies on trademarks as words. But it jumped out at me when I clicked that there was no indication that it actually was being discussed. oknazevad (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Council–manager government

Not sure how to use this, but please read: PLEASE RESTORE edited by 2600:100c:b01c:d221:655a:1601:3dca:7af (talk) at 14:23, 19 February 2021 on the council manager page of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council%E2%80%93manager_government&oldid=1007705647). I am unsure why you deleted, including my links to help the page. I have attempted to restore, but only undo is available. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B010:6CF0:952F:1182:8E16:16F (talk)

I removed it because it uses sources to draw conclusions that aren't in the sources, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I think this is the place to respond. Please forgive me for responding in the wrong places, I am new to this (I wish there were a way to hit reply on a notification). In response to the above, I can see how one would come to thst conclusion. However, I am drawing parallels with the British government and civil service and citing that source, which is found commonly in encyclopaedias. I would appreciate a compromise, if possible. If not, I am sure we could utilise Wikipedia's final word (moderator arbitration?). Thank you again for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoyama Productions (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The drawing of a parallel without someone else drawing that parallel first is unacceptable. That's why I reverted it and will continue to do such. oknazevad (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pennsylvania Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Station.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Muppets

Sorry but I was quite annoyed when you reverted my edit when it had a source. I only reverted it without a source once. Second revert I had the source added in. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw that. I apologize for jumping on you like that. It needed a better edit summary, though. oknazevad (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I appreciate your apology. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

New York

Without a cite for "distinguishing", that sentence seems like original research, and its oddness is heightened because its not really something one would find in a real encyclopedia, its either rather odd trivia or it's otherwise dictated not by encyclopedic need. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

While I can agree that a cite would help, it isn't odd to explain why a term is used at all. I have to disagree fully with that sentiment. oknazevad (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It is odd, even assuming its true, and without a cite there is no way to know, its treating the reader like an idiot -- any reader can easily understand why a state is called state, and with the city in the same sentence it could not be any clearer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Making explicit the reasoning is just reader-friendly writing. We can't assume the reader is in the least familiar with American geography and political subdivisions. English is a worldwide lingua franca, and readers of the English Wikipedia come from all corners of the world. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That is treating the reader from anywhere in the world like an idiot. It takes no knowledge of geography, nor political subdivisions to know it's a state. The reader from anywhere on the world already knows it's a state, because that is the first thing they are told, not seconds earlier. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Then why even mention that its also called "New York State" then? That's the point of the sentence. To explain that the state is specified to clarify that the city is not meant. oknazevad (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The usual reason, Wikipedia gives multiple nomenclature: 'in case you read or hear, New York State, that's what is being talked about, here'. But whatever the purpose of that sentence, it can't make-up a reason for being, and given the article is going to discuss the state's largest city, as a prominent part of the topic, it makes sense in the intro to introduce that, too. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Um, huh? I'm not even sure what your point is because your grammar is a bit of a hash. oknazevad (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry,

1) You asked why mention it's called New York State and I gave the reason. ("The usual reason, Wikipedia gives multiple nomenclature: 'in case you read or hear, New York State, that's what is being talked about, here'.") I thought you were already familiar with Wikipedia telling readers there is sometimes more than one way to refer to a topic. In this article it is "New York", and "New York State".

2) You said you had a point in making the sentence, and I then reiterated that that point needs a source ( "But whatever the purpose of that sentence, it can't make-up a reason for being . . .") I thought we already established that point you want to make is currently unsourced.

3) I then went further because the sentence not only introduces the nomenclature, "New York State", it also introduces New York City as is its largest city ( thus I said, "given the article is going to discuss the state's largest city, as a prominent part of the topic, it makes sense in the intro to introduce that, too).

4) As I think you will remember, my proposed sentence is,

"It is sometimes referred to as New York State and its largest city is New York City."

instead of,

"It is sometimes referred to as New York State to distinguish it from New York City, which is its largest city."

Because "to distinguish it from" is unsourced. My proposed sentence also has the benefit of more directly delivering the main information, and without the extra subordinate clause. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Official Railway Guides - Chicago station index

The Official Railway Guide index also makes mention of a combined station for predecessors of the SOO and GGW. It appears that they shared a station as early as 1885. Whenever I get around to it, I will be using the indexes to overhaul the table at History of passenger rail in Chicago. Cards84664 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be cool. But I'd also like to see both red links on that navbox made into articles before their inclusion in the navbox. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

New table at History of passenger rail in Chicago is  Done. Cards84664 07:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. But you definitely need to add the references! oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I'll get on that. Cards84664 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hamden station

I think it's worth having an article for the old station plus the aborted plans for a new station, even if it never gets built. Same with the sentence in the North Haven station article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think an article on the historic station is suitable, but the article would need a total overhaul as the previous version really overstated the amount of actual planning for a possible modern station, which is not in the actual current plans nor was necessarily going to be in the same spot as the historic station. At most the article should mention that a new station of the name was looked at and not pursued. Mostly the reason I went and scrubbed it was that it was incorrectly mentioned in many places as being actually in planning, which it is not, as had been pointed out at the main Hartford Line article. I'm not even all that keen on mentioning it at the North Haven station article, as it is not really relevant unlike the other actually planned infill stations. oknazevad (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Totenkopf

Setting aside that that "the Punisher skull" is a totenkopf as defined by the wiki entry ("It consists usually of the human skull with or without the mandible and often includes two crossed long-bones (femurs)"), you removed entire sections and examples that are not inspired by the Punisher.

If "It's not just being a skull" then you should also remove all other examples on the wiki entry that are just skulls. For example, the Arditi skull symbol.

Edit warring gets you nowhere. The insertion has been objected to by multiple editors already. Per WP:BRD once removed the material stays out until there's consensus to add it back in.

as for the actual logo in question, it is just a skull. Not all skulls are totenkopfen, which has a particular meaning and cultural context in English. That is lost in the definition and that list has long been full of excessive and incorrect inclusions. Let's not make it worse. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

While I disagree that the Punisher is not a totenkopf, and would like to see discussion about what is and is not a totenkopf on the page's talk page, you deleted examples that are clearly not Punisher-inspired. The German SD cap and the Calgary Police challenge coin, for example.--Kjoenth (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

New York (state)

I didn't want to edit war at New York (state), but you reverted my edit where I removed an unsourced chart of demographic data. Your edit summary said, "It's obviously sourced to those linked censuses." The first number in the chart you reverted is for the 1920 United States census. Could you please tell me where the inline citation is to support the population number of 10,385,227? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

CTRail rolling stock

So I recently saw your removal of the Hartford Line Rolling Stock chart because the "roster is not Hartford Line exclusive, and is shared with Shore Line East as part of CTrail pool". And I agree with that. Does that mean the Shore Line East roster is also not exclusive to Shore Line East? If the answer is yes, I'll also remove the rolling stock chart on the Shore Line East page.

--Davidng913 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a safe thing to do. The rolling stock chart has been on the Shore Line East article since before the Hartford Line commuter service existed, and before the CTrail article was created as an overview for both services. Now that both services exist and share equipment, it makes sense to put the equipment chart in the overview article, not the individual lines, just as with the other multi-line commuter railroads of the northeast. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. While the locomotives are pooled, the coaches don't seem to be (the MBBs haven't made an appearance on SLE to my knowledge), and M8s will of course only be on SLE should they finally be used. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: In that case would you also like me to restore the roster on The Hartford Line page as well? Also I hope you're fine with the creation of the CTrail page back in March 2021. Davidng913 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't. In response to Pi, I'd say that M8s can easily be added to the CTrail roster chart if and when they get around to using them on SLE (though they apparently wouldn't be used for all trains). Being limited to only one line isn't a reason to leave them off. After all, M8s only are used on one line by Metro-North, and yet they appear on the Metro-North article's roster. oknazevad (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit different than that - Shore Line East has 28 years of equipment history prior to the CTrail brand. Even without a table, there's still a need for a substantial section about the equipment history. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but. Namely that the history of SLE is the history of CTrail. That they added commuter service to the Hartford Line is largely because of the success of SLE. They're not separate systems, but two lines of the same system. oknazevad (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

2 links to 2 D&D Mimic Monters

Hi there,

Are this 2 links Book Mimic - A Variation on the Iconic D&D Monster and Splinter Mimic - An Interpretation of the Iconic D&D Monster good for the D&D related articles? Cheers my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.96.48.252 (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, because they're just used-generated homebrew. If we allow that there's multitudes of that beyond comprehension, none of which is remotely notable. oknazevad (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

File:AAA Mega Championship.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AAA Mega Championship.jpg, 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor League Baseball content ordering

Hi Oknazevad, the first three sections of Minor League Baseball are Early history, Ownership, and Current system (in that order). I'm thinking to move Current System above the other two, as most readers would be coming to the article for current information (especially given this season's new structure). Thoughts? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea has merit. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrestling Promotions

Hey bro so do u considered a national wrestling promotion if the promotion have a tv deal? USWA, UWF (Herb Abrams) or WCCW had a tv deal in the past? do u have the same information about Japenese and Mexican promotions with national tv deal? FranXBSC (talk April 21 2021 02:00 (UTC-5)

National television or national touring seems pretty objective for considering something a national promotion. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit to Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit of mine a few months ago. My edit indicated that in Pathfinder 2e, you can potentially take a reaction on your own turn. You said that was "not helpful" because a reaction is triggered by someone else's action. That is usually the case, but reactions have lots of triggers. A reaction could be triggered by another character's reaction on your turn. Additionally, there is a whole class of reactions that are triggered not by actions but by other circumstances. For example, the Azure Briolette Aeon Stone grants a reaction that is triggered when an enemy fails a saving throw to a spell you cast. So, it is plainly inaccurate to suggest that you can only use a reaction when it isn't your turn, and I have reverted the edit. PStrait (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited IRT Second Avenue Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Park Row.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

High-A

I moved Class High-A to High-A. Does a similar move request need to be filed for Class Low-A? I did note that the Official Rules] refer to it as "Class High-A", but it doesn't seem to be in common usage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, with Low-A I would just move it back to Class A (baseball) because of the decades of history to the name. oknazevad (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Marlins Park/LoanDepot Park

Hi Oknazevad, I saw that you added an NPOV tag to LoanDepot Park (aka Marlins Park) a while ago. I have copyedited parts of the article and I wanted to get your opinion. I haven’t copyedited the “Design” and “Features” section yet, however I reworked those you mentioned on the article’s talk page. Particularly, I wanted to ask you if there was anything I may have left out after my copyedits that was previously in the article.

Here is the revision prior to my reworking of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoanDepot_Park&oldid=1022578487

And here is the current version of the article after my edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoanDepot_Park&oldid=1023360348

Thank you, 2601:587:200:DFA0:7475:B3A6:3880:DF3D (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the blanket reversion was unfair and unwise. So I'm sorry that was done. Two thoughts come to mind. First, article talk pages aren't really the place to draft rewrites, so the wholesale copying of material from the article isn't a good idea. I'm going to have to remove that. The place to do that is in a WP:SANDBOX page. Which you would have if you were a registered user, something I highly recommend anyway, as it shows a commitment to the project that makes it less likely for your edits to be blanket reverted. It's not supposed to be that way, but it's true that it is. oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It actually was that blanket revert that made me seek out an editor to see if some sort of approval was needed to make wholesale reworkings of articles. I had a registered account back in the day, so I have some background knowledge of Wikipedia editing. I just didn’t know the state of Wikipedia editing these days and its policies now. I just may register again and make a RfC on that article to greenlight my changes. 2601:587:200:DFA0:3941:1E8B:7B6F:AA00 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe there's a way to recover your old username, unless you want to leave it behind. oknazevad (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Billiard ball revert

Hello. I see that you reverted this edit I made to Billiard ball, with the ES "That's not particularly notable. Every manufacturer has their own shades. It's not an entirely different color." I would just like to point out for the record that every billiard ball set that has the cyan-coloured 7 and 15 balls has a noticeably lighter shade of green for the 6 and 14 balls. While your ES is justified (and for the record I don't entirely disagree with the revert) I just thought that it was worth including because I have never personally seen a set with a cyan 7 ball and a regular, dark green 6 ball. Thanks --DL6443 (^Talk/_Contribs) 06:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While true (the cyan 7 is unique to the Cyclop TV sets), green is still green, which was my point. What I'm concerned with is bloating the paragraph with every manufacturer-specific variant. oknazevad (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup of merged section at Airline#Types

I appreciate your recent improvements to Airline#Types. Even if the section needed more work however, your edit summary comments about a merge being "poorly executed" and "not enough", were not the best choice of words. At first pass, they make me want to stop contributing. There’s an important difference between commenting on more work needed and criticizing an editor for contributing to an insufficient extent. If the merge was a step in the wrong direction tell me, but if it was in the right spirit and happens to be minor or incomplete, just leave those comments off. The helpful part is first portion explaining what you did to fix it. (And again - thanks for that.)

Honestly - this is minor. From your user page though it looks like you genuinely care about editor engagement on WP so I hope it’s well received. --N8 23:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I got a bit snippy there. It's not the first time recently I've had do perform such cleanup, so I probably got a bit frustrated. My apologies. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions needed

Re your reaction, my edit did have a takeaway: the Army is ineffective with SHARP. Corporals are ideal as non-bullies; the higher ranks tend to become more toxic. So, one direction for culture change in the Army might be to point out the need. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

All of that sounds more like PR and OR than appropriate for an article. Noting the changes so that now corporals are promoted from specialists instead of being a parallel rank for a non-com track is a worthy addition. Possibly explaining the motive for the change is good as well. Verbatim copying of Army releases, complete with their penchant for over capitalizing common words, is not. Also, it is better material for the specific article on enlists ranks, not the main article on the Army, which runs around of WP:RECENTISM. I think it's best to wait for third-party sources here, to leave the analysis to them, and to paraphrase that analysis with attribution in the correct article. oknazevad (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Clam Chowder

Regarding your undo: Manhattan differs from Rhode Island Red in that Manhattan contains tomatoes, and Rhode Island Red contains tomato sauce. But I understand your desire to reduce repetitiveness, see my additional edit.

Manhattan is made with sauce too. "Tomatoes" in this case refers to any form, whether sauce, paste, or whole. That said, the way you integrated it is well done, though some better sourcing might be needed. oknazevad (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)