User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 4

Active discussions

LAPD Service WeaponsEdit

Hello User:Oknazevad just want to let you know about the April 1st, 2011 edit of yours to cite references.  I am not going to remove your unreferenced citing edit that you put on the section.  Because in reality it is hard to cite such references since it is not published to the public.  First off, department memos are not published nor shall it be duplicated and only thing that is published is historical facts many years down the line by some author or can be found on Los Angeles Police Historical Society in their museum and LAPD Training Division  The second website shows the schools for Glock, 37mm, Shotgun, UPR, and transition schools, etc..  I have edited the Service Weapons section in LAPD and tried my best to plug the reference in........  I am not that good in this referencing stuff but you decide.  Will it be enough?  Probably not......but are they factual information?  Yes, it is and whom ever has knowledge and reads the section probably will only add to the section and never delete a service weapon listed so far.  And no one is careless enough to put the whole approved weapon list so every criminal knows how much gun their opposition has.  The weapons listed on LAPD so far are common knowledge easily found online, in movies, documentaries, shows, etc.... Have you checked out the NYPD pages?  Also unreferenced under the Firearms section.....  Also California Highway Patrol Duty Weapons section is also unreferenced....   Service weapons are not to be published under most departments rule and the only knowledge available is common knowledge.  I hope you understand this little reference conundrum in regards to service weapons of the peace keeping officers.......no one wants to show all of their cards.Neoking (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A query about a vote in the dash pollEdit

Hi Oknazevad. You may remember some comments at the dash poll (now in its last ten days) concerning the "between" sense of the en dash. I think it is not clear how you and two others want to vote about that. I am curious! But I am also concerned that the poll achieve a clear outcome. I have posted some evidence that bears on your concerns. Search for the words "concise rather than expansive" in that section of the page. Does the CGEL evidence affect your thinking? Here is some of what was said before:

A di M:

"The border between France and Germany is not the same as the border between French and German; it is the same as the French border that's also a German border."

Later, after a query from me:

"Anyway, I agree that a monumental descriptive grammar based on a decade of research by a dozen linguists should be given more weight than the personal tastes of the authors of this or that style guide."

Headbomb:

"Agree with the first, disagree with the second. A French–German is a border between entities of "French" and of "German" which makes no damned sense. It's the France–Germany border, or the French-German border, but it is not the French–German border."

Oknazevad:

"I'm just going to echo with Headbomb. He says exactly what I'm thinking."

I should note that the enormously respected and descriptive CGEL does not appear to discriminate in its own practice between {adj~adj noun} and {noun~noun noun}. Where the sense is "between", it uses an en dash.

I am posting this message at the talkpages of all three of you. Thanks for your attention to this.

NoeticaTea? 05:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Been waiting for you to find that shot!Edit

It was the "bookend" to the shot of the little girl you deleted long ago! Each was supposed to be a chapter head of sorts... Ah, well... :) Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the current kerfluffle over the images at the article brought it to my attention. (You'll note my agreement with you on that matter.) Such header images are good in theory, and work well in print, but here they are of less value. It's inclusion can (and in my case, did) cause layout issues. But you're right, I saw it and my first thought was of that girl at the radio image. oknazevad (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, a style point offered in a collegial spirit: I noticed you changed [Bob Hope|Bob Hope's] to [Bob Hope]'s in the article. This causes the screen to display it in two colors, and a type/design rule-of-thumb is that multi-color words severely inhibit legibility and should be avoided; I always go to the extra trouble for legibility purposes. It's a debateable point about header images, but I know you well enough now to avoid locking horns about it. Thanks for the support in the Great Debate. :) Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

CBSEdit

You're removing free images and adding non-free images- there's more to consider here than just whether the photographs are more or less linked to CBS. Basically, only free content may be used in articles. Non-free content is allowed, but only in extremely limited cases, and it is subject to rules that are deliberately significantly stricter than law. If you fail to consider the distinction between the free content and the non-free content, you are missing the important point in this issue. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

NJT MapEdit

Thanks for your input about the NJT rail map. I've updated the talk page with a preview of my first draft, which needs a little work on my part to fix font size issues. I believe it's a good start; take a look there, or view the full version here. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3Edit

I have made a discussion here. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fictional character biographiesEdit

Please don't call edits vandalism when they are accompanied by a reasoning, especially a valid one. Vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If you don't agree with that Wikipedia-incompatible in-universe section's removal, revert and discuss, but it's a lot more constructive to not burn that bridge right off the bat by calling another editor's sincere attempt at improving Wikipedia "vandalism". --87.79.226.75 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

CosmosEdit

Thanks for catching that... some people are really overzealous sometimes! Keep up the good work. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FC Red Bull SalzburgEdit

That is not a personal opinion. Furthermore I have nothing to do with that country, city or club. I live in the other end, so to speak, of Europe and the EU. Nothing bias. Red Bull itself stated that they did not accept anything from the past, before 2005. It is common sense that it is and have become a commercial enterprice and a marketing institution.

Just look a little around on the internet and you will see. Furthermore there is a club, that hournors the tradition, the new SV Austria Salzburg.  But well.. hopefully it is just a matter of time, before they officially and legally get the memorabilities and trophys, just like AFC Wimbledon did, before common ignorants can understand it, and stop believing in corporate marketing scams, stealing and lying, in front of the public and the people. Infobesity (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Showing a lot of NPoV there. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WebringEdit

We would link to AT&T on AT&T's article, and nowhere else.  The links on Webring would be like linking to AT&T on a List of telephone providers article, which we don't do; we would link to articles, and anything not notable enough to have an article would not be mentioned.  It's generally been a convention to only link to articles, based on how other editors cleaned up spam on List of text editors and List of Firefox extensions.

Also we cannot lean too heavily on primary sources to provide information.  We should use sources that are a "step away from the situation". hbdragon88 (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. I say we remove the ELs, but leave the names of the providers. I disagree that not having an article here means they shouldn't be mentioned outright. 
My bit about AT&T was cut off; my intention there was to compare using the first-party links as sources to linking to AT&T's site for their list of corporate directors. (Which is precisely how that section of AT&T is sourced.) In such cases of establishing basic facts (as opposed to interpretations of those facts) it's better to go to the original, to ensure that the information is accurate and up-to-date. 
Part of the problem is that the article is trying to be two things at once: an article on the concept of webrings in general and the article covering the original provider, WebRing, Inc. I've advocated splitting them in the last, so as not to give WebRing, Inc and undue monopoly on the concept, but there was concern that the company article wouldn't survive as a stand alone. I would certainly be willing to see them split, if you think it would work. oknazevad (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem with a list with links is that it could be tagged and removed as spam (which I did before you reverted).  The problem with a list without links is that it will be tagged with WP:LISTCRUFT and also possibly deleted.  A table showing services and the featuers they offer might work, perhaps a List of webring services, though I think we're kind of skating on thin ice there with the WP:N sharks underneath (just kidding).  Also, I think there's going to be a weight problem regardless of whether it's in the main Webring article or in a spin-off article.  If in the spin-off, we still might be giving too much weight to it.  hbdragon88 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd worry about listcruft here. There is a list, yes, but the article isn't just a list, and the criteria for the list is clear and specific, namely that these are companies that provide webring services, and limited in scope, as there's only a few such companies. My concern with WP:UNDUE is not that WebRing Inc isn't notable (there's plenty of RS already in the article to establish notability), it's that WebRing Inc ≠ webrings as a concept, while only having one article for both blurs that line too much. oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles' vs. Los Angeles'sEdit

   You summarized your undo with

No, that's not correct; Los Angeles isn't a plaural, it's a singular word (and proper noun) that just happens to end in an s.
  1.    The least important thing to note is that it doesn't "just [happen] to end in an s", but is (as presumably nearly every Angelino knows by now) more like plural in form (but singular in construction). (See construe, sense 2, if that noun is confusing.) It is a situation virtually identical with The Dalles or Thousand Oaks.
  2.    Your reference to it being a proper noun seems inexplicable, unless you gave so little thot to the matter as to imagine that being a proper noun should make it unnecessary to say that it's singular (despite "the Harrises", "the George Bushes, Jr. and Sr.", and, well, "Americans").
  3.    More to the point, whether the place name is plural or singular is clearly not dispositive in the direction you claimed, and arguably it is in no way germane. It would appear that you felt justified by the rule for plural possessive, not because it applies, but because you were uncritically sure that your own impulse was sound, and you remembered correctly that there is an uncontested rule about writing the possessive of a plural that ends in s. The rule says nothing about the situation you claimed to be the case in the edit you were summarizing (nor about the irrelevantly different actual case).
  4.    Most importantly, MOS:POSS devotes nearly 300 words to our guidelines on writing the possessive of nouns that are singular (at least in construction), giving "three practices", each acceptable (as long as consistently used in the article). Practice 1 calls for the IP's version; 2 calls for yours; 3 sometimes kicks the can down the cliff by turning the argument about writing into one about pronunciation of a possessive. (There's also a "goodness' sake" family of exceptions, and a vaguer "classical and biblical" one, neither of whose avoidance puts a significant burden on me. YMMV).
       A user as well informed as you implicitly asked to be regarded would have instead checked to see whether there were other instances in the article where the choice of practice would make a difference, and cited the result. (I say loss AN-jell-es-ez -- and i write per practice 1, BTW -- but i admit that there are boors who call the city loss AN-jell-eez, and those among them who say, for the possessive, loss AN-jell-eez rather than loss AN-jell-eez-ez, could perhaps be cited as making it acceptable to add just an apostrophe -- if practice 1 is not the one in use.)

   I don't presume to prescribe what you do after that check, if there is no smoking gun like "Morris's/Morris' proposal" for the old or new version to be inconsistent with; reverting with summary "there's no point in your changing the approach to possessive of single-terminal-S nouns unless it's inconsistent" is defensible, as is just going on to the next edit after saying to oneself "there's no point in my changing the approach to possessive of single-terminal-S nouns unless it's inconsistent." But do be aware that native fluency does not suffice for being an authority on writing.
--Jerzyt 08:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would largely have just agreed that my edit summary was poor, and I should have just said something like "no, it's not incorrect" as that was my real rationale, to plainly state that "Los Angeles' " isn't more correct than "Los Angeles's", which I tend to prefer because, in English, Los Angeles isn't plaural, it's the singular proper noun name of a major city, and I personally reserve the bare apostrophe for true plurals. But, frankly, I find the last comment you made just a bit more condescending than necessary, and your entire post is overly long-winded as well. I may nit have majored in English in college, but I'd hardly stand back and have people question my education, thank you very much. oknazevad (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
   If you felt condescended, then i was careless and probably self-absorbed when i wrote that closing. I'm not a language major either & didn't mean to hint that i think i am an expert either.  It looked to me like i'd paid more attention than you to the MoS (which is far more important here than one's academic preparation for writing), and i was more interested in being sure you caught the distinction between being right and following the MoS. And i may have erred in conjecturing (accusing you?) that you were overconfident -- IMO a tortuous dilemma, since a central and crucial feature of language is that we're not supposed to think about talking, but just talk by trusting our gut to keep it coherent: how does it differ from overconfidence?
   "Overly long-winded" is a fault i am well aware of, and it's a reason that i don't explicitly collaborate more at WP: the prioritizing required for condensing my thots (so i know what to omit) is so much more time consuming for me than meeting my own need for precision that the only alternative is to say nothing more than most would. Nor has sorting out whether that amounts to a vice of self-indulgence, or just a hopeless disability, been fruitful. Sorry to be the burden that i know i am, and thanks for whatever amt of your attention seems right.
--Jerzyt 09:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
S'okay. Thanks for the classy response. oknazevad (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AT&T founding changesEdit

Hi Dave, I just wanted to ask you about your edits with the founding date of AT&T. It has been well established that AT&T Inc. was founded in 1983 as one of the Baby Bells and has simply been renamed. Although SBC bought AT&T in 2005 and billed itself as the "new" AT&T, it really is still the same entity that was created in 1983. There are sources that have been properly cited to backup this date. I have always believed that Wikipedia strives to present the facts; therefore, I ask - why should 2005 be listed as the founding date? KansasCity (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because, in your own reversion you undid some intervening edits that were valid (OVERLINK cleanup and such). I thought I went back and took care of the issue you had, but apparently I missed something. My bad. I'll take a look, but must admit I'm not sure what it was. If you meant the founding year in the infobox, that's easily fixed (and I'm surprised I missed it). Either way, my edit was not mean to assert that the current AT&T was founded in 2005 (though that's when it took it's name), just to redo some things that shouldn't have been undone. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I admit that my quick jump to edit the page with the last edit made with the 1983 date was laziness on my part. I wanted to make it clear, however, that AT&T simply took its current name at that point, not a product of a reincorporation. KansasCity (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Trenton Devils, LLCEdit

I know Trenton Devils, LLC doesn't have to be there, but I wrote it in the article because it is showing the possibility that the team will be the same franchise. Since the ECHL is the only league to use the term membership and only league which actually reveals the teams filling out a membership application I think the membership itself is not associated with the franchise itself. I think it is more associated with the group who operates the team. This is a probability of what the Titans history will be. The New Jersey Devils suspended the Trenton Devils and gave them up to the league so that the league can find a buyer. Blue Line Sports, LLC bought the Trenton Devils and transferred them from Trenton Devils, LLC to a currently unnamed operator (Example, Trenton Titans Hockey, LLC). After the transfer was complete, Trenton Devils, LLC turned in their membership and the franchise is now operated by a different group and owned by a different group. The new owners renamed the franchise from Trenton Devils back to Trenton Titans. This is what might happen in the near future which is why I put information on Trenton Devils, LLC. I think this is the history because the hockey operations staff which i think represents the group that operates the franchise, tries to operate the team the right way. I think the players and the coaching staff doesn't care if the team is operating perfectly , I think they just care if the team is operating in a good position. The coaching staff and players cares more about winning and getting in the playoffs. Also, I think the coaching staff cares about trying to get there players to the NHL or whatever level comes next. Again, this what might happen in the future. That's why I put information on Trenton Devils, LLC.  Phantoms007 (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you're speculating on that which has already happened. The Trenton Titans are the same franchise, which is shown by the trade they made. And it's a done deal, no "might happen" at all. So all this speculation is exceedingly pointless. All of your questions are meaningless, as they won't change a thing. And the "membership" stuff your so hung up on doesn't change anything. Just let it go.  
I also have to ask why you suddenly have a different user name. It's a little odd. oknazevad (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The conversation continued, with the above sockpuppet of User:Hersheybearsfan continuing to horrible fail the duck test. He's a liar. And hereby banned from my user talk page. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Family Guy CharactersEdit

Why did you undo my revision of Joe Swanson being incontinent.  This is readily verifiable information at worst, if not common knowledge.  It is referenced in at least two Family Guy episodes.

Passing references in two episodes didn't strike me as defining enough for mentioning. oknazevad (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts are this if you check out our (Wiktionary's)  definition of encyclopedia, you will see that an encyclopedia is a comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of subjects.  In my opinion, this suggests a very limited range of information could be deemed unworthy of inclusion, hence my emphasis of the word comprehensive.  As such, a detail that is referenced on multiple occasions about an obviously handicapped character is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  Is my point understood? KlappCK (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)-
Perhaps you should read up on our trivia guideline. oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Redirection is no replacement for well-constructed argument.  Pointing me to our trivia guideline without explanation as to why you believe it is relevant does not move the discussion forward. However, in order to better placate you, I read the page to which you had pointed, and I find two things of particular relevance: 
This page in a nutshell: Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way. - Note that this is not a "list" we are talking about; it is a detail given inline with the rest the articles prose.
[Under the practical steps section:] The following are some practical steps that can be taken when articles have trivia sections...Integrate trivia items into the existing article text. -This is exactly what I had done.  Check the version history if you like.
Therefore, I ask you, again, do you have any arguments on the matter or are you resting on just your opinion?KlappCK (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Y'know, this would have been a lot more pleasant if you just said "I disagree". Nothing you say is invalid, nor is anything I have said. It just struck me as too minor a detail, that's all. Its not like they reference it nearly every episode. The page as a whole has issues with trivial details being repeatedly added (see the talk page and page history for some of the debate.) The consensus has been that less is more when it comes to details, and to focus on main details. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough.  So let us start over: given that we disagree, how do you propose we resolve this dispute? KlappCK (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's ask at the article talk page and see what others think. Seems the simplest solution. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. KlappCK (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, our own article on boldface, if you will take the time to read it, states that "...bold font weight makes text darker than the surrounding text. With this technique, the emphasized text strongly stands out from the rest; it should therefore be used to highlight certain keywords that are important to the subject of the text, for easy visual scanning of text."  The bold is done on certain key words or phrases that are at the heart of what I have to say.  I am not trying to convey a raised voice or excitement.  I hope this clears up any confusion.KlappCK (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen numbers...Edit

It all started here and ever since we've had to make up our own arbitrary definitions of a media market. We can mention boundaries and individual counties and communities, but we cannot use the terms "DMA (#)", "Market #" or "Fooville Media Market" without Nielsen getting all up in arms about it and filing another claim with the Foundation (though if the terms Top 25, 50, 100 or 200 are used they don't seem to mind as those terms are consistently in business media). It's quite annoying to deal with but I've learned to deal with it. Nate (chatter) 05:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Section titles at MoSEdit

I did get the edit-summary wrong, but of course you can't go back and change it. Yes, for italics there's something extra/different so say than for article titles; but for links, it's exactly the same, so why have it? Tony (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Being that you can't have a link in an article title (it's not possible with the mediawiki software), I have no idea why the article titles section would even mention links. However they can be put in section titles, but a combination of possible technical issues (especially ACCESS, iinm) and the consensus on aesthetics depreciates them in section headers. So that should be mentioned. I really have no idea why they are mentioned in article titles at all. If anything, that's where the change should be made. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, silly me. I realised and returned to say this, confirmed of course by your post here. Sorry and thanks for fixing. Tony (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
S'Ok. Nobody's perfect. oknazevad (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Third Rail (Irish Gauge - Standard Gauge)Edit

After a promising start, where even the prime minister (William Morris Hughes express support) dual gauge in Australia degenerated into a venomous "Not Over My Dead Body" attitude from the authourities.

The result that practically no dual gauge was ever installed, and the break of gauge took decades to diminish, and even then it is still with us.

Dual gauge was even resisted between Irish gauge and Narrow gauge where the gap is 21 inches and no 6.5 inches.

See [1]  There are a 100 other tagged quotes o the Third Rail issue.

Another nay-sayer [2]

A further point of politeness; you should post a "cite needed" tag and wait a while before you purge someone else's contribution.

  1. ^ "BREAK OF GAUGE". The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1956). Melbourne, Vic.: National Library of Australia. 29 December 1914. p. 7. Retrieved 27 August 2011.
  2. ^ "THE THIRD RAIL". The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 9 March 1926. p. 13. Retrieved 27 August 2011.
Seems like that problem is more political than technical in nature. oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LAgalaxy.pngEdit

Thanks for uploading File:LAgalaxy.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 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).

PLEASE NOTE: 

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. 
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page. 
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Line "A" BranchEdit

Thanks for restoring that reference to the article. I restored it fully with archive.org, as well as formatting all other references and moving them to inline citations. I also expanded the article from the sources. Now I just need to make a nice geographic map, then get out there myself and get some pictures of the old trolley poles and carhouse. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports personEdit

Actually your summary was incorrect as I researched it. I could not find an American dictionary with the word sportsperson in it at all. Not Websters not dict.org, not the American Heritage one sitting on my desk. It does not exist. However in Collins UK dictionary it shows up as one word "sportsperson." So it was not misspelled when you corrected it, you simply conformed to British English which is usually fine. But I looked and this page with all it's "ize" endings looks to be written in American English so I changed it back to sports persons. If you want to change all the spellings in the article to UK style I have no complaints, it's a generic article, just make it consistent. However if the term is used in an article on say, Serena Williams, it should always be two words as she is an American. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked Wiktionary. Shoulda known. Anyway, I believe it should remain one word. Even in American English, "sportsman" is spelled as one word. It makes sense for the gender neutral term to likewise be spelled as one word. oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't argue with that logic...seems sensible to me to. I just don't think that wikipedia should be the one changing the American spelling to what seems logical as opposed to finding the English sources and using what the sources tell us. Maybe some new collegiate dictionary at Barnes and Noble has it spelled as one word, since things change all the time? You could always find that book, write down the page and info and use it as a source here for the word sportsperson. I certainly wouldn't argue about it if you found some reliable English sources. I'd bet over the next 5-10 years it changes to one word too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Terrapin listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Terrapin. Since you had some involvement with the Terrapin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HoustonDynamo.pngEdit

Thanks for uploading File:HoustonDynamo.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 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).

PLEASE NOTE: 

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. 
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page. 
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

BravoEdit

  Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

NJT logosEdit

Can you please explain the removal of the NJT logos? If we have to restore the name parameter, that's fine with me. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

They're not the actual logos for the lines. The lines have assigned, rarely used, icons, but those exact layouts and designs of image and text (that is a full logo) are not actually used in a way that they could be considered the logo. They only appear that way on the system maps. They make no such appearance on the individual line schedules, nor on station signage. (Heck, at Secaucus, they don't even use the logos for the way finding signs). 

In short, to use them, and in such an overwhelmingly large fashion, misrepresents their prominence in identification of the lines. They have no such prominence, the colors do. That the colors on those versions of these don't actually match the standard colors doesn't help (the purple for the PVL is too light, for example). oknazevad (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How about cropping out the text (leaving only the symbol) and shrinking them? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. I just think they're not really needed, as the vast majority of actual usage by NJT is just the color, not the image. These aren't important enough for inclusion, in my opinion.oknazevad (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I did this to Northeast Corridor Line. What do you think? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd still rather leave just the colorbox. And the text aligns with the top of the icon, not the bottom, which looks off. I really don't think we need the icons at all. They aren't really used enough, and don't significantly add enough to the article to be needed.oknazevad (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Being the official logos, I think they actually do use them at the Secaucus track boards. If you still want to remove them, please post on WT:NYCPT and seek a third opinion. I will not add any more in the meantime. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it, they do appear in a few places, but not that prominently. If we could fix the layout of the one at the NEC article, so that the text aligns with the bottom of the icon, and maybe make them a tiny bit smaller, I'd be okay with adding them. I'll try something there and see what I can do.oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, take a look to see if you like what I did. I put the textless version of the log at 50 px above the name, with which I kept the color box. While the icons are the respective line colors, that's not inherently clear to those unfamiliar with NJT, so it doesn't hurt to have both. I think I can live with that. How say you? oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. If you can tweak the others to remove the text, we can easily add the icons back into the other infoboxes.oknazevad (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sports uniformsEdit

  Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

Viacom and Time Warner are owned partially by Liberty Media.Edit

Hi there. I just received a message from you with regards to the Sprint Nextel article. How am I supposed to tell people that LibMed owns a stake in  certain company? Thanks a lot! FOPFan300 23:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary at all. Lots of companies have small stakes in other companies as part of an investment portfolio. Heck, I do too, as part of my 401k. Unless it's a particularly large stake that gives the owning company some level of control such as a seat on the board, it's not worth mentioning. oknazevad (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
All right them. Go and get your shovel and sweep any minor Liberty Media holdings away from parent status. I'm gona find a good way to show their stakes. FOPFan300 15:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairlyoddparents1234 (talkcontribs)

Kim Kardashian ReduxEdit

You not only edit my quote from Kris Humphries on Kim's wiki page which you can Google and find millions of references to but then you delete my comments to you that referenced your snarky comments to me.  Why is that?  You found out I was right or realized your comments were uncool?  For whatever reason -- you were wrong in doing both.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa kristin1 (talkcontribs) 04:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it was uncivil. I reserve the right to refactor uncivil comment on my talk page. As for the original quote, firsty, it was a quote without a reference, which goes against Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability. As for the exact phrasing, let's look at it: 

According to Yahoo Sports, Kris Humphries had a suspicion his celebrity wife Kim Kardashian could be bailing on their marriage, but has told NBA friends he was “blindsided” by Monday’s divorce filing and learned of the news through a TMZ report like the rest of the world. “I love my wife and am devastated to learn she filed for divorce,” Humphries said in a statement later Monday.

In general, it reads like something from a celebrity news and gossip website, not the formal, detached tone appropriate for an encyclopedia, that is to say "unencyclopedic". (And, yes, that is a word. You'll find it around a great many discussion pages here on Wikipedia.) "Bailing on their marriage" is decidedly informal in tone and phrasing, but overall the style is just not right for here. 
Please don't take a reversion personally. I believe that you were adding this in good faith, but it needs polish to fit the purpose of Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Class 66Edit

Hi Okna. I agree. How do we get this moved back? --Bermicourt (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. I think it may be possible to put it in as an uncontroversial move, but I'm not sure. There may be some guidance at WP:INTDABLINK (which is essentially about disambiguation hatnotes), but I'm not sure really why the process is. oknazevad (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Positive train controlEdit

The removal of the Manufacturers section of Positive train control has been reverted. It is totally appropriate to identify the companies that make PTC systems, in a similar manner in which companies that make automobiles are listed in the Automotive industry article. This section is not an arbitrary list of external links (which Wikipedia guidelines do frown upon). Rather, it is information that our readers should find useful, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia. An argument could be made that it would be preferable to link to Wikipedia articles about the companies rather than the company website, and we would not be against such a change. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the article's talk page. The section has been updated to remove the external links and, instead, link to the company's Wikipedia article, if one exists. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

New York City Police Department vs New York City Sheriff's OfficeEdit

I noticed you reverted hatnotes I added to New York City Police Department and New York City Sheriff's Office, with an edit summary of "Unneeded; the names are quite distinct, and there's numerous city law enforcement agencies"; while you're to be commended for your WP:BOLDness, NYC's distinct division of labor (Sheriff's for civil law enforcement, Police for criminal law enforcement) required its own section in Sheriffs in the United States, a distinction that can legitimately be brought to a reader's attention by a hatnote.  That's why I chose {{distinguish}} over {{hatnote}}, the latter of which is used for other senses of a common term as your edit summary implied I was doing.  This is why I am re-applying the change I made.  Thanks. 72.244.206.19 (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's really needed as the names are so dissimilar. The separation between civil and criminal law actually isn't that uncommon in the Northeastern US; Bergen County, New Jersey has a similar split, as do numerous other counties. (Actually, the existence of distinct Police Department and Seriff's Office is actually a legacy of the consolidation of New York City in 1898.) And, as I noted in my edit summary, there are numerous other law enforcement agencies within city government; the NYPD isn't the only criminal law enforcement agency, nor is the NYSO the only civil law enforcement. Indeed, many agencies, such as the DEP police and the Parks Police have both in their portfolio. 
That said, I see, quite literally, where you're coming from, in so much as that Sheriff's departments usually have criminal enforcement as part of their portfolio and the NYSO doesn't (though it can enforce court orders from criminal courts). I'm still not sure a hatnote is the best way to cover it (an in-text mention of the distinction at the NYPD and NYSO articles are probably better), but I'll leave them there. It should also be noted that the Sheriff's Office is so much smaller than the NYPD that it's unknown even to most lifelong New Yorkers; I still think the chance of confusion is unlikely enough to need a hatnote. oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Corruption in The NYPDEdit

Hi, 

I just undid your delete of the whole section on Corruption in the NYPD. I have been contributing for some time, I am just using a different identity here, as I am indeed biased (one's opinions may be shaped by experience) and I am indeed afraid of the NYPD.

I haven't been able to afford enough time to work on this. I understand that the text needs to be improved and there were editors working on improving it. These are facts that we all know are true. Of course the original authors are biased, there is a political intention in registering a historical moment, but to ignore the facts is also a biased attitude; it's the same bias that the mainstream media has been a victm of. Sometimes accepting the cold facts forces one to take sides, as contributors to the encyclopedia sometimes we need to take sides, we must take sides with the truth, we must take sides in not ignoring facts that are so important from an ethic point of view.

I have witnessed the brutality of the NYDP in dealing with the peaceful protesters. Though I cannot be quoted as a "reliable source", there are plenty of videos and articles in the internet to support the facts. To ingnore these facts would be the equivalent of writing an entry on Nazi Germany and not mentioning extermination camps. 

We must stand for the truth. We must stand for keeping the information alive. Certain facts in history represent revelations of who are the villains, so the mere stating of a fact may seem biased, but we must not suffer from the same blinded biased that the mainstream media suffers. I believe are not taking pay for that. 

I have compiled info about the destruction of the People's Library by the NYPD. This is the most outrageous fact of all. It is beyond my capacity to have a NPOV right now. I witnessed this destruction. I won't post this draft just yet. Though in the past other editors have always contributed to improve the text, maybe this is too fresh. Maybe you would care to help and improve before it is posted. This text would also go under "corruption in the NYPD".

(btw: wikipedia has much in common with the Occupy movement, both are horizontal structures where decisions are made based on a form of consensus... both are favorabole to freedom of information... both are providing some free service to communities...I could write an essay about that, maybe I will, at some point.) 


DRAFT TEXT>

One complaint resonated with the online bystanders almost more than anything else: the treatment inflicted on the protest movement’s library. Literary star Salman Rushdie posted on Twitter: "Nazis destroyed books to "purify" German culture. Bigots do it in the name of God , or Alah. What's Bloomberg's excuse WHat's Bloomberg's excuse? "Higiene"?" [1]

The destruction of the People's Lbrary by the NYPD, under unconstitutional orders of Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief of Police is perhaps the darkest moment in the history of the Department. All other accusations of corruption and unjustified use of force against unarmed civilians may be somehow dismissed with elaborate arguments, but the destruction of books is an image that will remain unchallenged. The immediate references are Nazi Germany and radical Islam. When cops trash over 5600 books in an area that was blocked from the media and raided in the middle of the night, that is when we can be certain that these are not "good cops".

There can be no Free Speech, no First Amendment rights, when books are burned or confiscated. Think what you will of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the latest series of moves by Mayor Bloomberg and the NYC Police has disturbing ramifications. Among the books seized and destroyed were Sean Hannity’s Let Freedom Ring, Michael Savage’s Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, the poetry of E.E. Cummings, The Princess Bride by William Goldman, and many more. Police later said via a Tweet, that the books were fine. In fact, they were destroyed. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).



These are unquestionable facts that are shaping our history. If you have a chance, please improve style and wikify where necessary. These facts need to be published.

Thank you. Looking forward to developing this conversation. 

Best wishes.  

Anonymous9912345 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, NPOV is non-negotiable. And you know that. And you know you're violating it. You are editing in bad faith. Go the fuck away. oknazevad (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, Oknazevad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy.
Message added 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ [[1]]
Return to the user page of "Oknazevad/Archive 4".