User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 3

Active discussions

Cloaking Device and Star TrekEdit

I attempted to remove unnecessary fictional references to the Cloaking Device section yet you reverted it. I have no issue with this but merely would like to know why you have defended the section? Previous edits seem to show the page has undergone numerous edits to include and remove fiction. What is there now seems unverified and is trivial. Im an interested to know what you think (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

The term, and concept, of a technological "cloaking device" arises from popular fiction, especially Star Trek, which coined the term. Mention of these is not unnecessary; in fact, not mentioning it would leave a huge hole in the narrative of their development. Certainly, we don't need a laundry list of every fictional property that contains them, which is why I added the comment about not adding more. But to leave them out completely is a mistake.oknazevad (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The term perhaps but not the concept. The concept is merely engineered invisibility. As such I disagree with the need for a star trek reference in any sense apart from mentioning who coined the phrase. Otherwise we may as well also credit the mobile page to a star trek episode. but i see this has been a back and forth edit for a while now and doesnt look like there will be an agreement to satisfy all. (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC).
I wouldn't call it a back-and-forth at all. The section has been part of the page since the beginning. There was some debate over the size (and the current size is pretty well accepted), but I've seen no one attempt outright removal till today.oknazevad (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason I completely removed it is because I didn't think it would be a contentious issue. I was looking for a technical article on the progress of metamaterials in this field and was surprised to find a section mentioning fiction as the concept origin. Many other pages concerning a technology or field that is mentioned in fiction merely have a "In Fiction" section or a link such as "this article refers to real world progress in cloaking technology, for the Star Trek Cloak see..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasvoswiki (talkcontribs) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
See Metamaterial cloaking. That's where you want to look. The cloaking device page is an overview of differing technologies, including adaptive camouflage and others. There's also the Theories of cloaking page, though frankly that is super redundant and ought to be folded into the other pages. Frankly, I think there should be some better coordination between the various articles on metamaterials, their potential applications and other cloaking technologies. The entire set is disorganized.
Oh, and do please sign your posts with four tildes (these things: ~)oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RB Salzburg logo.gifEdit


Thanks for uploading File:RB Salzburg 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 15:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Station buildingEdit

I cannot agree with your comments about this article.  My response to those comments is as follows:

First, the Polish language article has many paragraphs about the architecture of station buildings, illustrated by many images.  These paragraphs make it clear that the topic of station building architecture deserves a separate article.

Secondly, there is a clear distinction in the English language between a station building and an overall station facility that includes that building.  In any case, has a "worldwide view" (or "global perspective") policy.

Thirdly, I have created dozens of new articles on individual train stations (most of them translated from other languages), and contributed to dozens more.  I can assure you that Grand Central Terminal is not a typical station.  In fact, the main reason I created the station building article is that I kept encountering places in articles about individual stations where a link to an article about station buildings would have been appropriate.  Although I could already provide links to, eg, goods shed and train shed, etc, there was simply no station building article in as yet, when one was required and several were available for translation from other wikis.

Please see also my comments on Talk:Station building. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the quick catch - much appreciated. Jmg38 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Un-knowledgable me!Edit

Sorry! I make use of Firefox's built-in spell-checker which highlights typos and is really useful for improving articles (it often spots words that I miss). 'Knowledgable' is not a word I use often and didn't realise this was a UK-US difference. Usually I'll only change US->UK spelling  to match the article language (per the rules), or if I'm feeling mischievous :o) . 

Although 'the rules' say to not change talk page text, obvious typos just make the text harder to read, and I've generally found editors to be happy with my subtle corrections. (So your acknowledgement is noted.) -- EdJogg (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


I would like to request your review of my rewrite of the Books-A-Million article since I noticed you had taken a look before.  It's posted now, and merged with Joe Muggs.  I believe it to be now well-written and well referenced, but I would like a second look from a more experienced editor.  Thank you for your attention.Eikou (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention.  It was greatly appreciated.  Eikou (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Title caseEdit

I'm also more used to title, not sentence case.  Never really used sentence case, before here.  But I did a search and found a lot of discussion of the one versus the other and it's pretty common.  Not trying o argue for a change, but if you like looking to off-wiki style sources, might be interested by the articles.  It's a note buried in the FAC commentary for Painted turtle.TCO (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Call it sticking to the sources. If the source's title is written in title case on the source itself, as is the case for the sources at Box turtle, then we should list them in title case, as in the original. I know that Wikipedia has come to favor sentence case, and that's fine, but it's not for us to decide the capitalization of something we didn't write. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
oops, I missed this discussion and am certainly not willing to start a fight over a case. Thought the revert related to the primate of the first editor of an article of wikipedia to choose between the style. Feel free to move back (at box turtle... L.tak (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I get your point.  I'm probably kinda more inclined to that side anyway (although maybe more open to the herecey).  Just was inviting you to look at some of the off-wiki discussion of the issue by stylists and different formats for journals and the sake.  No biggie and not going to revert or any junk like that.  Just thought i would intrigue you.TCO (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Law & Order (Franchise)Edit

Hi! :) It is CI's last season, there not going to randomly say "hey lets make a new season!" That ain't gonna happen, If you go on the charcters of those people's that i have marked with 2011, you will see there too, that they are finishing this year. thankyou :) anything else to discuss, you may discuss on my talk page. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

While it is 99.44 % sure to end, until it does,its bad form to declare that something has happened, when it hasn't. What if the episodes never air? Or they're delayed and don't air until 2012? Then the date would be wrong as well. That's why WP:CRYSTAL exists, so we don't state as fact something that hasn't happened yet.oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

International Lutheran FellowshipEdit

I see you've been running interference on International Lutheran Fellowship. I've never seen so many new editors appear at an obscure article in such a short time. Since it's entirely unsourced, and talks about living people, I'm almost inclined to cut it down to a stub, or revert to the earlier version. If you know what's going on over there I'd be happy to support your efforts in cleaning it up.   Will Beback  talk  08:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's either sockpuppets or meat puppets at work, trying to push out POV material. Just keep an eye on it.oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Several of the usernames are historical figures, indicating they may have been created by the same person.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
And almost all the edits have been mentions of the same guy, Robert W Hogues, at various articles, mostly mentioning that he's an alumnus of this place or faculty at that place or on this or that board, etc. All of which are dubious, and only sourced to one website. Considering the one user name is User:FriendofBobW, clear conflict of interest. oknazevad (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pi Day celebrated with pies clarificationEdit

Hey Oknazevad,

You recently reverted an edit I made to the Pi Day article concerning the holiday being celebrated with pies.

I just wanted to clarify why I did this as I think you may have misunderstood my reasoning.

The sentence in question read "Pi Day is often celebrated with pies, given that pi and pie are homophones."

If you split this sentence, you get "Pi Day is often celebrated with pies" --and-- "pi and pie are homophones". Both of these ideas are indeed both true and verifiable, but it is the synthesis of them that I questioned. With the current wording, the article is stating that the reason the holiday is celebrated with pies is because of the homophony. We cannot assume this causality.

What if Pi Day is celebrated with pies because they're circles (actually quite possible)? Or Larry Shaw's favorite food? Or for a completely arbitrary reason?

I know I'm being a bit stringent here, but we must uphold the policies.

I'm going to do what I should have done in the first place and add a [improper synthesis?] template. Hopefully you agree with its addition. As opposed to removing the sentence, the template should garner research into this connection.

Eventually though, I think we could avoid this situation altogether with some more explicit and deliberate wording. (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I took that "synthesis" dealy away, given that the source says one of the items on Pi Day is "obviously" pie. If you can find anything other than the homophone to explain that "obviously" part, feel free. In fact, there is no "synthesis" problem there. You're not likely to find an actual source overtly stating the reason, unless it would be something targeted at a non-native speaker of English who might not get the joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you help with archiving the Pi Day Talk page?Edit

First off, thanks for helping out with the article. Participating with more established Wikipedians is quite helpful, since I'm kinda new around here.

Which is why I'm asking for your help: Can you help me archive the talk page (of Pi Day)? There's a lot of garbage on there, as well as just old discussion. And, your stance on archiving pretty much explains that you know what you're doing.

What I'm encountering now is that the archive I made isn't showing up on the talk header template (See Talk:Earth or Talk:American Civil War for examples). Do you know what might be wrong? Thanks. (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That should work. I just copied and pasted the relevant portions of the header from the Civil War talk page.oknazevad (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Mets-Willet Point LIRR stationEdit

When you realinged the image, it created and even larger white space in the Platform and track configuration chapter. I wanted to create just enough space to avoid obstructing the reference chapter. I don't think moving the image up is going to work out, and while I considered moving it down below the external links and above the categories, I doubt that'll be any good either. ----DanTD (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Let us eat cheeses for the weather is merry and the mosquitoes are fearful.Edit

But, I must know your inspiration for that line, Darkfrog. 'Tis hilarious.oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going for something silly and indisputably irrelevant to the MoS.  My first idea was to use the line from Futurama when Hedonism-Bot says, "Let us cavort like the Greeks of old know the ones I mean!" but I figured that might be taken the wrong way if not provided in context.  This one is a combination of a line from Merry Wives of Windsor and a general "Let's have a barbecue" irrelevance.  Come to think of it, I should be posting this on your talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


I will continue to revert it back to Anaheim Amigos. Period. As far as I can see, there was no real consensus on the page merge in the first place . . . you can go ahead and create a separate LA Stars page, but there will continue to be an Anaheim Amigos page. --CASportsFan (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The page merge is well in line with the established consensus for basketball pages (though there's some debate on teams that changed markets). There's no consensus for your changes, which were specifically discussed at WT:NBA. And frankly your rationale is crap; the use of the name for the first season does not give it any greater importance. Give it up. Your just being tendentious and disruptive. I'm willing to seek a third opinion, but find your behavior pointless. oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Chicago FireEdit

There is no place to move the Chicago Fire page that doesn't already exist.JaMikePA (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But even deleted pages still have a record of former material, so it's not deleted entirely.

The Price is Right modelsEdit

Can you run a bot to update all the links currently pointing to Barker's Beauties changing them to The Price is Right models? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A) I don't know how. B) Redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN. They can be changed casually over time. There's nothing wrong with that. oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


Just to let you know, Wendy's is divesting itself of Arby's and going back to Wendy's International. So all of those changes you just made now have to be undone. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 07:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:03-West.gifEdit


Thanks for uploading File:03-West.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Revived ANI noticeEdit

Tomatosoup97 has revived the ANI thread you started a few days ago.  You can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:oknazevad.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 15:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleveland BrownEdit

If they revealed that he was from Haiti, would he still be considered African American? Just because a terminology, a terminology that has been disputed historically for its inaccuracy, has become commonplace to mean people with dark skin means nothing to me. There is no reason to call him African American over black, as they mean the same thing without being confusing to readers. In fact, the sheer fact that Cleveland Brown is the only character on the list with any reference to race shows a serious POV - it's treated as a gimmick, as if it is the defining trait of the character like Quagmire's sex addiction is to him. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is no political incorrectness, at the core, in using the word black to refer to a race of people. It is a common sense usage of the word, and has no negative connotations. You would have a point if it was proposed to use blacky or coon, but black is not offensive. What happens when someone from Haiti or South America disputes the use of African American? Is it no longer politically correct? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hell, I don't really care one way or the other, and haven't reverted as I have no objection to using "black" at all. (Side note about the fact that he's the only character with his race mentioned: he really was a bit of a gimmick to start.) I just felt that your edit summary seemed off. "Black" as a racial descriptor does have negative connotations in some circles (usually pretty extreme from either end). 
The rise of "African American" as a term coincided with the increase of various hyphenated-American terms, and was more used to displace the depreciated "Negro" in usage. But that's not really important. We're discussing a fictional character, and once again, I haven't reverted.
As for whether someone of Haitian descent would be called "African American", I've seen it before. But once again, my note was intended to be a friendly FYI, not a major debate. oknazevad (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Just letting you know that there are 4 more episodes left of SVU season 12 (24 in the season). Now because NBC etc. has news on what characters are appearing weeks before the episode airs, I will date ADA Hardwicke's role with 2010-2011 around the airing of the 22nd episode, if there is no mention of her in the later episodes to come. She is just like ADA Carmichael, Marlowe, West, Paxton etc. who only had a few episodes, arcs, and thats all. No mention of her being a regular like Cabot, Novak or Greylek. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation of Puerto RicoEdit

I have no objection to your change on the NASL page, but I would just like to let you know that PUR is the three-letter official FIFA code for Puerto Rico. Thanks Bmanphilly (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Still, consistancy with other, two-letter state and provincial postal abbreviations makes the most sense. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Geoff Petersen SpellingEdit

I'll buy your argument that IMDB is user-generated but how do you argue with the show's credits, which have consistently shown the name spelled with an E? Rob SkelRob Skel (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The twitter feed spells it with an o, as was already noted on the article's talk page. oknazevad (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As of recent shows, the spelling on the credits has been changed to an o, so all is now consistent. Rob Skel (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Shoreliner III/IV Push pull editEdit

Hey, According to this page 6304 is an IV based on the car numbering:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebo2good1 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian rules footballEdit

Hi there, with regards to this edit to Australian rules football, could you please see this talk page discussion from last September where the consensus was to have that mentioned in the lead. If you still agree with removing that sentence then could we please take it to the talk page. Oh, and as a final, pedantic note, nothing in the lead of an article needs to be referenced, as long as it is referenced later in the body of the article (not sure if that is the case here or not). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Shoreliner III/IV Push pull respondsEdit

Actually TTMG is not an unreliable source, there site is very well reliable in certain areas, so your wrong with that. Most NYCT Buffs think they know all about Railroads but they don't. Fan railer im fine with as i know who he is. The administration of TTMG got the car numbering of 6304 as the "Shoreliner IV" back when Wikipedia had a rooster of the MNCRR commuter rail fleet, which doesn't seem to exist anymore.

BTW how do you reply instead of making a new post.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebo2good1 (talkcontribs) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Use the "[edit]" link by the appropriate section title to reply (indenting your comments with one or more colons (":").  Also, please try to remember to sign your posts with "~~~~". Tim PF (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


I notice you recently made this revert to Bombardier MultiLevel Coach, but a similar edit was made to Highliner by the same anonymous user ( (talk · contribs)); it might be worth checking out all their edits from yesterday. Tim PF (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with the New York boroughsEdit

I'm not too familiar with them, thanks for picking up on my mistake. And I was using "Metropolitan New York" simply because I hate using the phrase "New York City", so thanks for picking me up on that too. :) Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just "New York City" in particular, I just don't like putting "City" at the end of a place name. I suppose it's just because I'm used to the more British-style usage, where the name alone refers to the city and the province or state is specified as so. Just a variance in dialect I suppose. If you were ever to refer to "Bulawayo City" or "London City", for example, people would look at you very oddly. In any case, please continue to keep a tab on this because it is helpful – it's remarkable how much effort it takes to use the American spellings, for example! Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

TOC vs. TOCleftEdit

Just noticed that you removed the tocleft from The Chronicles of Narnia.  Just wondering, doesn't having a huge mass of white space underneath a regular toc look worse than a "sandwich"?  Just askin'.  Thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I request that you do not fix my signature againEdit

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick question...Edit

And I mean absolutely no disrespect. Have you ever worked in publishing outside of Wikipedia? I simply cannot believe we're having this disagreement at CBS; the photo so clearly makes the page look better, and since there are no copyright issues involved, why make a second-rate page layout when you can have a better one — other than a slavish adherence to the vague guideline to be "encyclopedic"? I just don't understand your objection — particularly when there's so much important editing that needs to be done further down in this sorry bramble patch of an article. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series)Edit

Hi Oknazevad, I saw your reversion at Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(1987_TV_series).  I appreciated your explanation in the edit summary, and I did ultimately see the reference to the title controversy further along on the page.  However, 1) The nature of the controversy is still unclear in the article.  The article says that the the title was changed "due to the controversy surrounding ninjas and related weapons such as nunchuks at the time."  This is ambiguous, because it doesn't explain what the dispute was, or who was involved.  Were parent groups put off by ninjas for their violent reputation?  Did Japanese people in Europe object to the portrayal of their cultural icons as violent?  I see that there is a reference for the controversy, so I'll take a look at it later.  2) When I read the introductory sentence, I was confused.  "What controversy?"  There shouldn't be ambiguity in an encyclopedia article, and especially not in the intro sentence.  My recommendation is that we remove the reference to the controversy in the opening sentence, because we don't need it.  Like this: "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (known as Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles in Europe) is an American animated television series produced by Murakami-Wolf-Swenson."  Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern with the shorter version would be that it would lead to more questions, as people wondered why the difference. As for the root of the controversy, it was about "ninja" being considered too violent for a children's show. (The Europeans apparently associated the term with assassin.) It could probably use a bit of better explanation in the section. As for the lead, maybe an internal link to the censorship section would be best. Something like:

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (known in Europe as Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles due to controversy...

What do you think? oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Luther bible translationEdit

Hello Oknazevad, I just wonder why you have removed my addition so bluntly.
I know that my addition is not common knowledge in Netherland (I'm a dutchman), mainstream history is always behind professional history. About sourcing, I don't know if that goes for English literature, but it is most certainly sourced in Dutch (& Belgian Flemish) historical literature. I guess you don't read Dutch, but in the Dutch Luther-Wiki the things I've mentioned are being appreciated, so why shouldn't that be so in the English wiki.
You may call it contentious, but talking about this time means also pointing out the strong contrasts there were. Also, Luther didn't come just out of the blue with his ideas about translating the bible into German/folklanguage. The things I've written are relevant context which has to be mentioned. In what is now all of northern Germany (Saxony in particular) and the Low Countries, the Hanseatic world, the Brethren of the Common LIfe were wide spread. They had more effect on christian opinion and believe than generally is known. By the "small" steps they made/took, f.i. by putting Greek in their curriculum they were a large contribution to the climate which made Erasmus and Luther possible. Luther took things further than Erasmus did and before him the Brethren of the Common Life did, that's the point!
My suggestion to you, learn Dutch and start reading!.


Feel free to re-add it, but please add sources. The current article is short on sources and is too advocatory as is, so we need more reliable sources. As for me learning Dutch, this is the English Wikipedia, so frankly your suggestion is rather condescending and fundamentally incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Just one thing, it always seems to go without saying that everyone (foreigner) speaks, reads and writes English, but the other way round?! Isn't that condescending.
PS By the way, also thank you for editing my contribution. I will add a reference to my source!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


If you are correct, Carolina Telephone & Telegraph needs updating with reliable sources explaining that CT&T currently exists legally a part of CenturyLink. Fix that problem, and I'll accept your argument. As the article is now, CT&T ceased to exist at some point after it was acquired by Sprint and (by implication) is not part of any other company. No offense, but abiding by WP:V and WP:RS is not asking a lot. Cresix (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly, and am working on that as we speak. (Between levels of Angry Birds.) oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask you (respectfully) to hold your horses before restoring CT&T to the template. I need a while to read. Also, please point out specifically what the sourced information is in CenturyLink site that "makes clear that the Embarq companies are still extant as operating units", as well as your source for information that every company acquired by Sprint became entitites of Embarq when Embarq was spun off. Cresix (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Please remove CT&T from the template until you have provided the above information, and until someone revises the CT&T article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
With appropriate citations, that's good enough for me. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

CenturyTel/Embarq operating company articlesEdit

I am sorry that I have been adding articles without citations. I have been generally going to the websites of the Secretaries of State of the state that each company operates in to obtain information about founding dates and former names. There are also multiple sites on the CenturyLink website that list each CenturyLink operating company and to be honest I have been working to get articles for each company on there that I have not even bothered to source them which I realize is not proper. 

The reason I have been trying to add separate articles for each company is because of the similarity to the purpose of the Bell Operating Companies, which still exist and have their own histories to warrant separate articles. If the CenturyLink companies do not warrant separate articles, I am fine with combining them all into a single page. I would argue that the Qwest Corporation article should remain a separate article do to the different history of the Bell System compared to CenturyLink. I very much like the idea of a CenturyLink operating company listing grouped by their "legacy" companies as you proposed. Let me know what you think we should do - maintain separate articles for each separate company or do a single article which I propose we could call CenturyLink operating companies KansasCity (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize you had already created List of CenturyLink operating companies. KansasCity (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


He Oknazevad, I think the IP might have a point, but just not be aware/comfortable with talk page use... I have left a message (also for your info) there... L.tak (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Major LeaguesEdit

Good Saturday Morning Oknazevad, Group discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey I invite discussion for addition of the Canadian Women's Hockey League (CWHL) in the template Major League. The CWHL is the major women's ice hockey league in Canada. Thanks --Charlesquebec (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I probably wouldn't put any of those, as they generally aren't considered major leagues in the sense that this template is trying to convey. They get relatively no coverage in media. Especially the hockey one. I think this template is trying to indicate the leagues with are called teh 4 major leagues. In fact I would probably remove all of the others other than the four. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to copy this over to the talk page of the template. oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced1 re: Geoff PetersonEdit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Geoff Peterson, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. While I agree with your edit summary that "the 'Why' of Goeff Peterson is the sort of analysis that an encyclopedia should provide", the paragraph you added does not cite a source for its analysis.  As a result, I have reverted your 13:36, 12 May 2011 edit (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Don't template the regulars. I've been here for years, I don't need a friggin' welcome message. oknazevad (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You know who is editing Wikipedia *sigh*Edit

Well if my worries about this couldn't get worse. Can you please keep on top of User:Nexis4Catenary? If the name isn't a given, you know who this is. Considering some off and behavior, and considering he keeps changing out crap, can you keep an eye on him. This is a bit too personal (If you want more detail, either email me or PM me on for me to keep reverting his stuff.Mitch32(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 03:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Its hard when you have this feeling that hijinks may be going on here and have no power to do anything. I don't want to divulge much on site to why I feel this way, but after consulting with another Wikimedia Foundation-ite and lawyer, I feel she's right and that I need someone with knowledge of him to keep an eye on him. I just feel rather uncomfortable that this happens a few weeks after I redesign my userpage which has some of my personal info on it.Mitch32(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


I'm a bit confused here, I think. I had added Bundesliga (baseball) to the pro baseball template because I noted the template was on the page already, and there was no indication on the article itself that it was an amateur league (or, for that matter, what its status was). After your change, I looked in the template talk page, and all I saw was a note that it was "questionable". The template's page history had only an edit summary with "as previously discussed". I also checked the article's talk page, but found it was blank beyond a couple of project templates. Where did the discussion of this league's status take place? Did it get removed for some reason? -Dewelar (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was here. My take away: if in doubt, leave it out. There's some doubt as to whether the Bundesliga is fully-professional or just semi-pro, so we decided to remove it from the template, as it's for fully-professional leagues, not all top flight leagues. (Semi-pro in this context, as I understand it, means players aren't full-time baseball players, but have other jobs and are only paid as part time work.) oknazevad (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, that makes a bit more sense in context, although the edit summary I saw made it seem like it was specifically decided they were amateur. However, I'm not sure I follow the definition of "semi-pro" here. Wouldn't that pretty much apply to almost all 19th-century American baseball (possibly even later) and all minor leagues up to and including the present day? I always understood the definition of "fully professional" to mean all players are compensated, no matter how little. -Dewelar (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC), then, I guess the question is, whence comes this definition of "semi-pro"? I've never seen it used in that way before (usually, "semi-pro" is used to mean "amateurs can participate, but are not paid, thereby allowing them to retain their amateur standing"). -Dewelar (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that I'm incorrect. However, "semi-professional" is still "professional" in a sports sense, in that they are paid. This seems like splitting hairs to exclude certain leagues. -Dewelar (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...I wish it would say somewhere, then, that it makes such a distinction. It would also help if either the professional baseball article or the list of professional baseball leagues made such a distinction (the former does not list Bundesliga, but the latter does, although neither article says why). -Dewelar (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that the two articles need to be combined. However, not trying to be dense or anything, but I'm still not clear on how "semi-professional" is a meaningful distinction as it pertains to baseball. I can see how it pertains to football -- as is mentioned in the semi-professional article, it is used as a separator -- but in baseball, the difference between professional and semi-professional seems to be purely a matter of whether or not the players have other jobs, which doesn't seem pertinent to the actual baseball part of the equation. Am I missing something? -Dewelar (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, but making it a distinction if the leagues themselves or the national/international governing bodies don't would require some solid sourcing, which doesn't appear to be present currently. -Dewelar (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethan HuntEdit

No part of any Wikipedia article should be written up like a fictional character biography. Imho our guideline on writing about fiction gives excellent advice on in-universe style of writing and why it's always a bad idea for Wikipedia articles.

The long and the short of it is that a fictional character is not an individual and simply does not have a biography. Fictional characters are, from the coherent real-world perspective Wikipedia is striving for, not born - they are created. Fictional characters are elements of their respective stories, and should be discussed as such.

A section recounting plot details with particular respect to the character discussed in an article should straightforward be called something along the lines of "Plot details".

I'll hold off on any further edits to the article since we should make sure that we're on the same page first. Also, I've decided to contact you on your user talk page since the article isn't exactly busy and I'm confident that we can settle this between the two of us (that is, on the one hand I'm convinced that my removal of that section was correct, but I'm genuinely interested in your take on things). -- (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So, have you made up your mind? -- (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles (such as Batman) have such "fictional character biography" sections. As such, I believe the community has decided they're fine. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, no. It just means that too many people have not understood what real-world perspective is, and why it's so important and absolutely non-negotiable, not subject to any consensus (short of a consensus to stop trying to be an encyclopedic project anymore).
Anyhow, an appeal to the authority of the masses is less of a compelling argument than I had expected, especially after more than two days of you trying to avoid replying at all (since, I guess, you figured you already had it your (MOS-violating) way with the article).
I hope our paths won't cross again, since you're unfortunately not a clueful type. -- (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd advise you to understand policy. Firstly, your insults are an absolute violation of WP:CIVIL, so I warn you to watch it. Secondly, I was busy. 
More importantly, WP:CONSENSUS is the supreme policy. Everything is subject to consensus. And if you can't respect the project's consensus, then that's your problem. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to some of my workEdit

In your edit summaries attached to your changes to the articles about several of the Greyhound regional operating companies (for example, the piece about the Southeastern Greyhound Lines), you've expressed your personal belief or preference that an article in an encyclopedia "does" not (or, more accurately, you say, should not) contain a conclusion -- that is, a summary, summation, final section, ending section, or concluding section.
Your position on that point stands in stark contradiction against the conventional (and well established and time-honored) wisdom among professional writers and editors.
Please cite one or more recognized authorities to support your suggestion.
You also alleged that the article about the Atlantic Greyhound Lines is "devoid of substance", although it does indeed contain a large volume of specific factual details.
Please point out the particular areas where, in your view, the article is incomplete.
Exactly where do you feel that it needs even more details or more elaboration or development?
You further implied that the articles about the Greyhound companies, which I composed and posted, are merely "essays" rather than encyclopedic articles.
On what criterion or criteria did you reach that opinion?
Do you truly mean or believe that it's "devoid of substance"?
Or did you just try to bait me or jerk my chain by hurling at me a gratuitous personal insult?
Please also briefly describe your qualifications and experience in writing and editing.
Especially, have you ever done any work in publishing anywhere other than at Wikipedia?
DocRushing (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant what I said. Encyclopedia articles are not personal essays, and do not include passages that arrive at conclusions or otherwise draw inferences. See WP:NOTESSAY, part of the policy on the subject that covers to the entirety of the encyclopedia. 
As for the "devoid of substance" (which was in reference to the conclusion sections only), that's what a single sentence, repeated at every article in the series, can only be called. Especially when it consists merely of "x had a lasting impact".
As for the idea that they are your articles, they're not. Read WP:OWN. As it says below the edit window, "If you don't want your writing to be edited, used and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
I have no interest in insulting you or your writing, nor provoking a fight, but frankly find your tone insulting to me. Especially when you deem my writing subpar when you write talk page messages with simplistic, one sentence paragraphs. Your claims seem ludicrous, and are made the more so by trying to be about my writing condescending. oknazevad (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You've wandered away from the subject.
Let's return to the matter at hand and concentrate on it.
According to the conventional wisdom among professional writers and editors, any piece of writing -- academic or otherwise, scholarly or otherwise, encyclopedic or otherwise -- should contain three basic elements: a beginning, a middle, and an ending.  The beginning is often called the introduction (which Wikipedia by convention and by declaration leaves unlabelled); the middle is often called the body or discussion; the ending is often called the summary, summation, or conclusion, or it may bear a more specific title.  The internationally recognized authorities on that point include both Kate Turabian (who created the Turabian Style for academic compositions, including doctoral dissertations, for the University of Chicago) and Theodore Bernstein (who long served as a long-time assistant managing editor of The New York Times and as an adjunct professor in the School of Journalism at Columbia University).
In most of the articles about the Greyhound regional operating companies, the conclusion of each one of those restated and reemphasized the central theme that, through all the acquisitions, paring, developments, and mergers, the division or subsidiary in question, when finally merged into the single nationwide corporate entiity, made a major, significant, and lasting contribution to the route network of the present Greyhound Lines, Inc., as described in detail in the preceding sections comprising the body of the article.
In one of the two exceptions, the conclusion about the Capitol Greyhound Lines stated that the single mainline route of that subsidiary, between Saint Louis and Washington, no longer exists (because the Interstate-highway system made that route impractical, unattractive, and unprofitable).
In the other exception, the conclusion about the Tennessee Coach Company (TCC), a cooperative neighboring carrier, reemphasizes that "the separate existence or identity" of the TCC had ended (by its merger by the Continental Trailways into the Continental Tennessee Lines).  The addendum, after the conclusion, describes the next sequence of events (beyond the TCC), then it states the result, saying, "Now a few pieces of the route network of the Tennessee Coach Company still exist, but only as unrecognizable parts of the present Greyhound Lines".
Those concluding sections do not constitute soapbox-style personal conclusions, observations, implications, or inferences, and they do not convert the articles into essays.
A written composition, even an article in an encyclopedia, without a summary, conclusion, or other ending section is much like a musical composition without a coda or codetta.
Your suggestion -- that an article should not include an ending section -- stands in stark contradiction against the mainstream of the widely accepted authorities.
Again:  Please cite one or more sources to support your position.
Again:  Please briefly describe your qualifications and experience in writing and editing.
Again:  Have you ever done any work in publishing anywhere other than at Wikipedia?
This time please stick to the point, and please refrain from making tangential personal comments.
By the way, please note well that at no time did I ever refer to the articles in question as "mine".  On the contrary, I referred to them as "the articles" and the ones "which I composed and posted".  No, I do not feel a sense of ownership with regard to them, but, yes, I do feel a sense of stewardship toward them.  I welcome genuinely helpful and constructive improvements to them.  However, I do not welcome counterproductive changes by users who do not have the requisite knowledge of the subject matter or do not have the requisite skills in writing, editing, revising, and rewriting.
I invite you to read my comments about Wikipedia (and some of its users) on the home page of my website, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds.
DocRushing (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Because I posted here before, this page was still on my talkpage, and I hope you don't mind reacting here in addition to Oknazevad. I think Wikipedia's manual of style would be a good resource on the article style(s) used on wikipedia. They are fundamentally different from papers or articles; partly because such a structure is not common to every encyclopedia and because drawing conclusions based on combining individual sources is often construed as original research (which is interesting and tempting, but not accepted here...). ... again, just the opinion of a latent talk-page stalker; and yes I have had my share of intro-exptl-results-disccussion-conclusion articles... L.tak (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
As have I. L. tak puts it very well. The problem with conclusions in Wikipedia articles is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and putting together a conclusion from multiple sources is a form of synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not alone in the absence of conclusions, either; Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have them either. oknazevad (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

MLB - Bud SeligEdit

Thanks for the clarification. However be careful with the bombastic tone on something that was an honest error/oversight. "It's already in the info box" would have sufficed since not all of us have the time, or interest, in closely examining the leads of the other three or four major sports (assuming the NHL still considered major) and ensuring the are in lock step with eachother. Cheers! Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

My apologies. It's just that I had just reverted a really grammatically poor version in the previous edit, so I thought you might be the same editor being obstinate. I should have checked that better, and I truly apologize. oknazevad (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes  Edit

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series)Edit

  Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT The only constant 12:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Kinda in the middle of editing that. And WP:Don't template the regulars. oknazevad (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Oknazevad, I'm thinking about snipping some of the unnecessary jibber-jabber on the TMNT '87 discussion page.  I'm looking at the Song Lyrics and I Keep It Real discussions, specifically, as they are general discussions about the show, and not specific discussions about the *article*.  Since you hang out there a lot, I thought I'd run it past you.  Thanks!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Got your message on my talk page.  I've no objection to archiving.  It was a nuisance to read through a bunch of OT stuff and I figured the page could be trimmed.  Whatevs.  :)  Regards!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Actually Im not a bot, its just a matter of paying attention, and having the proper monitoring tools. DTTR is an essay that I ignore, all users are equal, whether you are new or an admin Ill give you the same warnings. ΔT The only constant 13:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're behavior is atrocious. Your rapid fire reversions, when a user is actually in the middle of updating a FUR, fails to assume good faith, and is unreasonable, as most editors are actually editing manually and can't work at superhuman speeds. Knot like you have ever shown that you care. oknazevad (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The proper behavior is to write the rationale then re-add the file, not the other way around. ΔT The only constant 14:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It's at times easier to revert, click on the file (to make sure you've got it right), and make the changes there. The whole thirty seconds that it takes to update the FUR while the image is there isn't going to end the world. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
However that is against policy. There are too many times that people revert without fixing the problem. ΔT The only constant 18:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Oknazevad/Archive 3".