User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 8

Active discussions

Naming conventions (stations)Edit

Since there is no consensus and this topic just won't go away, I'm attempting to at least centralize the discussion all in one place. (Then maybe — hopefully — it can be sorted out … ?) Useddenim (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I doubt there will be; the conventions essentially vary from country to country, and I think they're fine the way they are. But I see what you're saying about centralizing the discussion, and I did undo my reversion. I just don't actually know if that's allowed. oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The MuppetsEdit

Regarding your assumption of good faith, an IP-hopper keeps adding this to tons of muppet-related articles, never with cites despite many reversions and requests:( DMacks (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just being kind in calling it good faith. It's highly unlikely to be true; one's the Muppets, the other is an animated property. Puppets vs cartoons. Sounds like a load of wishful thinking by a little kid. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

edit summaries
Thank you, railfan, for your contributions to articles on transportation, for work on templates ("Good thinking and a nice bold move") and for quality edit summaries when you clean articles from blue, POV and crystalball, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! oknazevad (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Graphic Crocodile imageEdit

Requisite butt hurt post on revert: The severed image of a hand on Crocodile attack seems to serve more as violence porn and now as a protest against censorship on Wikipedia than anything informational. I dispute the value of the picture. True though that objection is more about the graphic nature, and less on the little value the image provides, so I agree your revert was correct. There probably does exist an informal rule about graphic violence as otherwise Wikipedia would be swimming in graphic violence imagery to the point that Jimmy Wales would make an autocratic decision to maintain Wikipedia's popularity. It's probably not a formal rule because such a rule would allow more conservative editors to abuse it. I argue that your revert and the original post of the image however violate the informal policy about gratuitous violence porn. It leaves Wikipedia a little worse under your watch. In retrospect I should have been a little less honest in my edit comment. It probably would have escaped notice. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC))

Although if that picture frightens peoples to stay away from Crocodiles and prevents more injury, that may make it a good thing, so in that way it is informative. I am not sure though if using shocking images to influence behavior is a task relevant to Wikipedia's mission. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC))
WP:NOTCENSORED contains no statements about "violence porn". And I dispute that that is what this is; the informational value is to include an illustration of the subject of the article. The warning signs are useful, but indirect, while the generic image of a saltwater crocodile is almost purely decorative. The only actual image of a crocodile attack on a page about crocodile attacks is exactly the sort of thing that belongs, even if it is graphic. That it is violent just reinforces that it is a violent subject. That ties perfectly into the intent of WP:NOTCENSORED; Wikipedia is not whitewashed needlessly. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC))

MotelEdit

Please do not change English spelling to Americanised spelling, as you attempted at Motel. If you look at that article's talk page, there are complaints about that article being imbalanced and US-centric in content dating at least to 2011. If you must create Motels in the United States, do so on some other page, this one is not US-specific. See WP:RETAIN. K7L (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes in US-centric content (for a subject that originated in the US, I might add) do NOT in any way, shape, or form call for the needless change of US spelling (a perfectly legitimate spelling system) to British spelling needlessly. I think you need to read WP:RETAIN again, anbd understand the portion about "first major contributor". You completely are incorrect in your understanding of the guideline, and should cease immediately in failing to respect WP:ENGVAR. oknazevad (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." Quoting WP:RETAIN. Calli ng to expand international coverage DOES NOT constitute calling to change the variety of English used. Your change to British spelling is wrong. Period. oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

SnuckEdit

It looks like the change was made on a very large number of pages... perhaps we should get a centralized discussion somewhere about if these mass changes are supported by consensus. Also please remember NPA in edit summaries. a13ean (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013Edit

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:Heraldic charges]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Independent League BaseballEdit

IronPigs play in Lehigh County. See List of Counties in NY CSA here: http://www.census.gov/population/metro/files/lists/2013/List1.xls . Incidentally, Bridgeport and Trenton are in NY CSA but not NY MSA also. So If you want to use the stricter definition (MSA), all three should be out. If you want to use the broader definition (CSA), all three should be in. No justification except for opinion for treating these three differently.

Disambiguation link notification for August 14Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Branch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Subdivision (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Double StandardEdit

I didn't attack him, I merely pointed out he attacked me, a practice that is common by the "insider" editors. Clearly there's a glaring double standard.CharmsDad (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You commented on the contributor, not the contribution. That's not good. oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet his comments about me and my knowledge were perfectly acceptable, just as other snide comments from other "insiders" aren't edited. I commented that he attacked me, that's fact. Clearly a double standard not only exists but is considered perfectly acceptable.CharmsDad (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viscount Raoul de Chagny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ken Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013Edit

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''Chili'' is widely used in the United States<ref>[http://i.word.com/idictionary/Chili "chili" from ''Merriam-Webster''; other spellings are listed as

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The full monsy venus!Edit

Hi Oknazevad. I agree with you - the pointer to Joe Whatshisname - whoever he is (candidate for deletion? ;-) .....), is unnecessary. But it was a compromise: Mons Venus was pointing to Joe Redner (odd, at the very least), I changed it (Mons Venus) to Mons pubis, as per what the majority of peopole in this wide world understand by "mons venus", myself included since age 13. To 'make up' for it, I transposed the link to said nudist king here .... Your opinion? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Repointing the redirect was a good idea. Beyond that, don't know why the redirect used to point to that guy, and frankly don't really care because it was such a poor redirect that it needed to be changed. The hatnote remains unneeded, though. Good call.oknazevad (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

New York Cosmos (2010)Edit

Hey, whatever your gripe is, let it go. I am not interested in your opposition. Let's just end it, and work towards productivity. To note, you quickly made a revert just out of spite and don't even read what the addition was. That is showing poor judgement. Again, that doesn't bother me, but you are certainly compromising the page that way. If you really want to do something constructive, then let's move forward in a new light. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read the edit. It consisted of nearly 10 citations for one fact. And, again, editing against the long standing understanding that, no, this team is not the same as the historical team. The current owners bought the rights to the name and logo of a defunct team, that had no continuous operations at all. It is a mistake to think that the use of the logo for some kids summer camps is any sort of continuation of the defunct club. And any claim by the new club as anything more than a new team that bought the rights to the name is pure marketing fluff. The team itself is not a reliable source for this, as they have a vested marketing interest in making such claims. They are a non-neutral primary source, not the objective source we need.
More importantly, there's the fact that you continue editing in multiple locations along these lines, despite multiple editors reverting you and discussing this with you. Please accept that consensus has not changed and that there's no support for these changes. The only one compromising the page is your insistent, non-consensus edits. oknazevad (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I came here in a polite fashion to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is obvious, and proof once again, that it is only about your opinion. I placed information, in two minutes time you reverted the post. You obviously did not read the contribution as your comments in the history logs demonstrate it: "Don't need ten citations about the achievements of the historical club here". This has nothing to do with what I wrote. Don't try to cover your tracks. You simply did what you did because you are only about yourself. The citations were written to make a point. If you truly did work in favor of the page, you would have simply reduced it to one. We know how that went on your part.
I am not going to enter into any debate over your tight claw grip view. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how arrogant it may be, but the debate about the term rebirth should not be brought up as it is a recognized term for the cub. It has been used by the New York Times, CNN, and countless others around the world.
You bring up the fact that when I place something you and another editor who is hijacking the page will not allow anyone to write unless it is your decision. The verdict is that you are being hostile to any contributions from anyone because you "own" the page. This is very wrong on your part. You are no guardian of this page. Consensus? Spare me the poppycock. What consensus? A couple of people out of 300 million in the world? You two are the consensus, and no one else has a say? Such pompous arrogance. You should not even be writing here. Go write a blog. Bye. NYCWikiKid (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the one pushing through my opinion over the reverts of multiple editors. So climb down off that high horse you've put yourself on, and don't accuse me of being arrogant again. I've been here for 9 years, I know how Wikipedia works. You are the one acting against consensus. And then trying (and failing) to justify your behavior with clear WP:TLDR walls of text.
When other editors who have made tons of edits to a page and are active revert them, it is incredible bad faith (a clear violation of policy) to accuse them of "hijacking a page". Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word "hijacking" again; its usually the person who comes in and attempts to impose his will without discussion and arrogantly dismissing the opinions of those who have been involved for years that is the hijacker. Check yourself, junior, and learn, instead of getting all indignant, accusatory and defensive that other's don't agree with your edits.
Seriously, no one is trying to stifle your good additions. There's just some severe concern that a) your additions confuse an issue, b) are outright policy and guideline violations (like the logos) and c) your editing behavior is extremely non-collegial. Seriously, I've seen the exchange at the noticeboard. Walter removed the logos because we are simply put not allowed to use them in navboxes. When that was explained to you, you became exceedingly defensive immediately, and accused Walter of bad faith. Not cool,man. Maybe you need to re-read WP:AGF a few more times. And review WP:CONSENSUS too. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see I'm not the only one being accused of pushing my own opinion on these articles. And I thought my opinion was my own. On that note, Oknazevad, when you're done with my opinion, could you send it back my way? I sort of miss it and I'd like to think it misses me too. However, if it's happier with you, I'll find a new opinion to call my own. It may look the same, but it will never be the same. Kiss my opinion good night for me, please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Bravo!! oknazevad (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You can say what you like oknazevad, and I am only speaking to you. The very reason that you have been "here" for however long it may be makes you sound like you believe you are the only one correct. You are the one that needs to relax and reassess. I don't doubt that you might know your way around the site, but maybe you have been so dialed in that all you see is what you only believe in. That is troublesome. You need to disconnect, drink some water, smell some outdoor fresh air, and see life from beyond the screen. There's more out there. From my first contribution to the template of the Cosmos all you have done is click revert. Instead you could have collaborated on improving the template. Still, it was easier for you, because you are overloaded with obsession to the site, to click undo like that is all that matters. You just click without thought, and communication. Say what you want, think what you want, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you simply demonstrated that all you care about is what you believe. Exhale, because you will get the best of yourself and things are not like what you think. All the best. And no more communication.NYCWikiKid (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to speak only to Oknazevad, you can't do it on this talk page since it's public.
Your premise is entirely wrong. The editor has been on Wikipedia for such a long time (since 2004), not under the assumption that he or she is the only one correct. Quite the opposite. The reason most editors stay on Wikipedia for a long time is usually complicated, but it involves
  1. having some fundamental understanding of at least one subject and they want to give back some of what they have learned
  2. understand that neutral language and verifiable information are key to creating an encyclopedia
  3. don't mind providing their service for free
  4. cooperation (because those don't cooperate and play nicely with others either get frustrated and leave or are permanently blocked and no longer permitted to participate)
  5. following policies and guidelines, but learning to be flexible and seeking consensus and following it, even if they themselves disagree with it.
But really, that's all covered in the fundamental principles we call the five pillars. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

New York IslandersEdit

The Isles were one of first two affiliates of the Trenton Titans!!! Even in the article it says that! What is the reason why you say that are not? Raul17 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Islanders affiliates Raul17 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
D'oh! My bad. oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Woodbridge vs. Woodbridge TownshipEdit

There is a generic issue regarding the titles of articles for townships in New Jersey, some of which must have the word included in the title (e.g., Mendham Township), some which probably don't need it (e.g. North Bergen) and others that have arguments raging over the relative need of the word "Township". Woodbridge Township includes a central district "Woodbridge Proper" that uses the title Woodbridge (CDP), New Jersey, and in such cases the consensus has been to avoid potential confusion by including the word in the title for the parent township. There are excellent cases to be made either way, and I am assembling a master discussion that will address this on a project-wide basis at WT:NJ that will use the Encyclopedia of New Jersey as a starting point to consider the overall naming for all such pairs of municipalities sharing a common name. As such, I have reverted your move of the article for Woodbridge Township, New Jersey and I encourage you to discuss this issue at WT:NJ in the near future. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Koreatown, ManhattanEdit

Hello Ok, would you mind answering "Two Questions" on the Talk:Koreatown, Manhattan page? I'm just curious what editors think. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

New York & Putnam help; Rockefeller RealignmentEdit

Regarding the new version of the New York and Putnam Railroad station list; I've seen a few of the old maps of the tracks of the line around the John D. Rockefeller estate, Tarrytown Reservoir and vicinity. Unfortunately, there's this big gap between the 1929 map and 1934 map. I can't find any others between those years. As I stated, the File:Putnam_Division_map2.png shows three different alignments in the area, rather than two;

1)The pre-1929 alignment around the Tarrytown Reservoir with Tarrytown Heights, Tower Hill, Pocantico Hills, and then Whiteons stations.
2)A second alignment bypassing the first three stations that still includes Whiteons station (this is the one that's throwing me off).
3)The final alignment which includes Graham station.

I'm already aware of the pre-1881 alignment that had a bridge over the future site of the reservoir, but I doubt that applies in this case. Am I right about this or am I wrong? And if I'm right, then what's with that third alignment? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't say I know enough to be of help. I just know that the various alignments didn't coexist and so I wouldn't refer to them as branches. If anything, for the purposes of the chart, I'd just list them all in the main line list, and include in a notes column that they were closed as part of each realignment. That's probably the most accurate description of the situation. oknazevad (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
One additional thought, Leave off the connections. They're not contemporaneous with the actual operation of the division, so are inaccurate to include. For example, Putnam Transit didn't exist until may years after the division ceased carrying passengers, so even though someone now could connect to Putnam Transit buses at Brewster Station, no passenger actually riding the Putnam Division ever would have, so it gives a mistaken impression of what service was available. oknazevad (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll dump Putnam Transit, the subway, and all the buses. But what about the Park Hill Incline and 9th Avenue El? The Park Hill incline seems like it'd be a notable landmark near Park Hill station and the 9th Avenue El is an example of Sedgwick Avenue as the transit hub that it was. Your suggestion to include the former stations in the main line chart seems interesting. I've actually considered a version that included all the stations in a single chart, and making segments for separate branches like the list on the IND Culver Line which includes the BMT Culver Shuttle, but I changed my mind about this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of your chart at Atlantic Branch, which seems a good model, for the closed stations. oknazevad (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey datesEdit

There is also a part of the guideline that reads WP:DATEUNIFY. The dates should be consistent throughout. As of now the dates are mixed in the citation section. Somehow I think its better to have them MDY as that flows nicely with the rest of the article.--JOJ Hutton 22:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Red-eared sliderEdit

You are incorrect about the spelling in Red-eared slider. "Colouration" was spelled this way in the earliest version and UK spelling dominates the article now. Please check more carefully next time you do a revert. Thanks. Dger (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But it was in US spelling predominately for the vast majority of the article history (at least 5 years) and only wound up with UK spelling as part of a sloppy merge of a translation from the Spanish language version of the article. Plus it really should be in US English per WP:TIES as the species is native to the US only. oknazevad (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Are humans not mammals?Edit

You do realize that dinosaur (dinosauria) is a taxonomic ranking right? Evolution cannot make something evolve out of a taxonomic rank. If it did, humans would not be apes. Birds are dinosaurs and are classified as dinosaurs by science, as they belong to the taxonomic rank dinosauria and are specifically maniraptors, along with their cousins such as the dromaeosaurs (such as Deinonychus, Velociraptors and Utahraptors) The Mummy (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

My Contribution to "New York"Edit

Hi, I wondered for what reason you undid my contribution to New York about the importance to the economy regarding gravel and sand mining, including that by the well-known companies, Gernatt Family of Companies? I view this as very relevant to the state, don't you? Overlooking it and not including it does not paint a thorough picture of the importance of this industry to the state. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Still awaiting a reply. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
While mentioning the industry as a whole makes sense, it is undue weight to mention only one company, unless it is a nationally known company. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine; I understand that. The industry is important, and I think it deserves to be included in the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

HeyEdit

There's a discussion on WP:NORN regarding the NASL templates and stuff. Your input on the situation would be much appreciated. – Michael (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

New York City SubwayEdit

[1] – Are you seriously doing this — edit-warring over an insignificant piece of text that is totally relevant to the article? It is not WP:TRIVIA, it's a helpful addition that clarifies the difference between line and service. If you want, I will revert my edit, but claiming that "three other editors have removed it, so clearly there is no consensus to include it" is not true. The NYC subway, Taipei Metro, and DC's Metrorail are the only three metro systems so far that make this distinction. Thanks, Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 02:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't revert after my one removal, so I would hardly call it edit warring on my part. That said, it really is not essentially to understanding the New York City Subway, so I would consider it trivial. But I will not revert again. oknazevad (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but don't revert it without discussion, as you are continuing the other editors' edit war. You were just the latest editor to revert it. My apologies. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 03:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you please stop!Edit

I say this amicably, do not contact me here. You are someone who has been for the past 2 months reverting my contributions left and right. It is all cataloged. Do not pretend to be my friend. Do not pretend to come here in a polite way. Do not pretend that you actually care about what I contribute other than to revert because you have some vendetta that you want to fulfill. Do not pretend to have ownership which is your issue. Do not pretend to think you know more than others, which is what you do. Do not think that you have the right to bully which is what you do. Do not address me period, as you were the one who were initiating a BOLD Revert on the other page of the New York Cosmos. I have nothing against you as you are but a user among millions. But you certainly think that you are the Wikipedia police. Just don't contact me as I don't solicit your input. I work with others and am open always to collaboration, but you are clearly someone who has a personal agenda towards me. Stop being unproductive and preventing improvements on Wikipedia. Stay away from me. Stop stalking my every move. NYCWikiKid (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not stalking when these are templates on my watch list, as are many MLS (and other major US sports) related pages. I also know that there is a current, ongoing discussion, and that with nine years experience here I have some idea of how things work. I am trying to help in good faith, but do find my patience stretched thin when numerous multiple editors have tried to help but you continue to engage in the same non collaborative behavior. And it is non-collaborative, as any one editor can and must take input from any interested party.
Seriously, the fundamental issue is that not everyone agrees that your template design is an improvement, and you can't seem to accept that. Frankly, I think it's a bloated mess that misses the point of a navbox, which is not to be a comprehensive history. I think the coding uses too many colors and creates loading issues because of the large code size. And I think they have been full of factual errors and misrepresentations. And I know I'm not the only one, because I've seen the discussions at Template talk:New York Cosmos, WT:Footy and most recently at WP:NORN. So that's why I ask that you cease attempting to force your version until the discussion concludes, as WP:BRD calls for. You made a bold change, it was reverted, now the original version stays in place until discussion leads to consensus to go with your version, but not until then. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't. That's it, and that's all. oknazevad (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

NYCFC colorsEdit

You're right about crystal balling of course, which is why I haven't made a single edit to the coloring of that template pretty much since I created it in the first place. I was more commenting out of principle. My hopes are that NYCFC makes itself its own club and shares only a few occasional links with City - the occasional joint training week and exchange of players once every couple of seasons perhaps - but from what I've seen of the marketing so far, NYCFC's management are intent on making it a clone of the English club. I'd be surprised if too much of the Yankees' influence showed in kit design or club crests, as I suspect that both will end up remarkably similar to MCFC's. The idea is, I believe, to funnel all the NYCFC support into MCFC's own global network of fans. The Yankees are just there to be local enablers for City. Falastur2 Talk 00:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They certainly seemed to announce it that way. Too bad for that plan that the backlash was pretty immediate and they've more begun to emphasize the NYC aspects (especially getting games on WFAN, the city's main all sports radio station, also the radio home of the Yanks). So far all they've used for a logo is a plain circle with plain text; that may be in part because looking too much like a City farm team has received poor response. Uniforms are at least a year away, though, so this is all very speculative. oknazevad (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's the other way around. In fairness, actually, I think the logo will look nothing like MCFC's logo (in spite of what I said before), even though I would not be in the least surprised if their kits are literally a copy-paste of City's (although the Adidas-MLS deal throws questions on that to a degree). I think they never intended on announcing their logos and colours at this stage. One thing the new board have been very good at, if you look at the last few years of MCFC's history, is playing up their social presence and web content to suit the fans. To this extent, I'd honestly argue that they have the best internet presence of any sports team in the world. I reckon they have carefully planned exactly when to announce the logos and colours as part of a meticulously-coordinated schedule of releases to engage the fans. After all, they founded the team 22 months before the first game the team would play, so they need a lot of stuff to keep the potential fanbase interested.
I think you'll see that as the time ticks down, they build up the hype more and more - for instance, expect them to do a kind of "7 day countdown to the release of the badge" where they do a promo video or social media event of some kind for every day of the countdown. They've done that a lot with MCFC - in the countdown to the FA Cup Final earlier this year, for example, they released a video every day focusing on all the other FA Cup Finals City have played in, and they've done similar for other events. This very week, they've relaunched their (already brand-new) daily news report videos by moving them to YouTube and inaugurating them with a week-long focus on the (incredibly exciting - no sarcasm) £100m new training facility they are building in Manchester. I reckon they knew the exact day they wanted to release the badge from the very start, and it's probably not going to be for another few months yet.
On the other hand, while I reckon Claudio Reyna has a very good idea of the way he wants to make an independent NYCFC identity, I don't think MCFC's board has learnt any lessons at all - they have occasionally showed signs of that "it's what's best for the club, even if the fans don't agree" attitude back in England every so often (thankfully not often enough to take it beyond "mildly discomforting" for us the fans who were there before they were). I think the promo video of MCFC's players playing keepie-upies in NYC is proof of this. They know exactly how much of a MCFC-USA they want NYCFC to be, and they aren't going to change their minds no matter what the response. Thankfully, I reckon that after a few weeks after NYCFC actually begins its first season, this issue will disappear into the background. Once people just accept the choice of colours, they'll soon forget the links with Manchester. I just hope NYCFC don't alienate too many potential fans before that happens. Falastur2 Talk 22:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for whether there should be a separate section Lords of Shadow seriesEdit

Hello you're invited to vote and express your views on Template talk:Castlevania series#Separate section for Lords of Shadow series?. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

US station naming conventionsEdit

Hi! You're being spammed because you've participated in the move discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)#Requested move. I'm seeking input for a broader policy solution to US station name articles at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations) and I hope that you'll participate there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Indiana JonesEdit

Thank you for your continued efforts at Indiana Jones (franchise) and Template:DisneyConsumer. I'd like to inform you that I've started a discussion regarding the issue at the article's talk page, in the hopes of manifesting a substantial consensus on the matter. Cheers. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesEdit

I can see you don't like the excessive linking, but the four Turtles do wear domino masks.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Major League Baseball editEdit

No problem with including the uniqueness of not having a single set of MLB rules. If you don't mind though, could you stick a source on it? As we're in the process of a GA review, we're just trying to tighten up the article where we can and to not leave anything unsourced. Thanks, Oknazevad! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ScotchEdit

I have undone all your changes to the scotch whisky articles. That is way too bold, affecting multiple articles, and you have reverted someone reverting you in violation of the bold, revert, discuss process. This is a major change and requires discussion in advance. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think in needed too much advance discussion (indeed, that's what being bold is about), but the discussion has started at Talk:Islay whisky

New Jersey township articlesEdit

There is a generic issue regarding the titles of articles for townships in New Jersey, some of which must have the word included in the title (e.g., Mendham Township), some which probably don't need it (e.g. North Bergen) and others that have arguments raging over the relative need of the word "Township". While Edgewater Park, New Jersey is probably non-controversial, Mount Holly, New Jersey is more problematic (there are ample sources showing common use of "Mount Holly Township") and there are other moves you have made that appear dead wrong, such as for Woodbridge Township, New Jersey. While I appreciate your zeal in changing these names, these articles have had stable names for over a decade in most cases and (as discussed above), there is a place for discussion of these issues at WT:NJ. Given that moving and retitling articles with hundreds of inbound links will be inherently controversial, please take the time to discuss before making these unilateral moves. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand the issue, but the bottom line is the title "Edgewater Park Township, New Jersey" was blatantly incorrect in terms of WP:COMMONNAME and needed to be changed. Seems to me that many of these article were created by data dumping government databases years ago, and which typically use the format "xx Township" but don't reflect common usage at all. If anything, the entire system is backwards, as the default seems to be to include "township" in the the title, when common usage typically doesn't unless there's need for it. The same should be true of out titles, period. "Township" should be removed from all titles unless it can be explicitly shown that common usage includes the word in reliable secondary sources. That is the only system that reflects the proper policy. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC) PS, was heading over to WT:NJ to address this specifically when you brought this up, so I'm jus going to copy this conversation over there verbatim.
I'll follow you there. I don't disagree re Edgewater Park, but there are other issues here, especially where the township may be confused with another municipality or community that shares the same name, such as with Woodbridge Township, New Jersey or Chester Township, New Jersey. The names amy not have been prefectly chosen, but we should probably discuss first before changing long-established article title. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't disagree with the use as a disambiguator, but that's already part of the article titles policy. My issue is with using a name not used in common usage without any reason, such as disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybrook LineEdit

So we're not adding the Maybrook Line as a non-revenue line of Metro-North? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no, as the already-linked Beacon Line article already covers the Metro-North relevant portion. Don't need to link both in the navbox. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rye whiskey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo Trace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In Re: Removed Pennsylvania and Vermont templates in Talk:AmtrakEdit

In a post on Talk:Amtrak you said: "Probably autotagged by a bot. An argumemt could be made for PA, as the railroad's main operations office center (the real HQ, as opposed to the congressionally required Washington Union Station) is in Philadelphia."

Actually several years ago Amtrak moved most if not all of its core operations from 30th Street Station in Philadelphia to the Consolidated National Operations Center at 15 South Poplar Street in Wilmington, Delaware. Legally the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (d/b/a Amtrak) is a District of Columbia corporation and their headquarters is 60 Massachusetts Avenue NE, a separate building next to Union Station (whose address is 50 Massachusetts Avenue NE) which is where the Amtrak President, Legal Counsel and other top level departments including the Amtrak Board of Directors work out of not in Philly. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That was three years ago, nearly four. At the time, Amtrak still had major offices in a modern building adjacent to 30th St, with a rather large Amtrak logo on the side. Since them, as you note, they've moved more operations to Wilmington. Either way, it is irrelevant to the idea that tagging the main Amtrak article to only two states is incorrect, and those state project tags were removed. No need for the thread necromancy. oknazevad (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
No I completely understand that and I wasn't condoning the tags I was just trying to point out about the move to Wilmington, that's all. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It's all good. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts‎Edit

Recently you edited this article with the comment "Don't relegate it's use by Byzantine Catholics to the ghetto of a footnote. That fail NPOV". I fail to see how that is NPOV or that having it as a footnote is in any way inappropriate because Byzantine Catholics are a small minority of users of the Byzantine Rite which, methinks, makes their mention of questionable merit at all, so a footnote seems ample mention. *And*, few Byzantine Catholics even use the Presanctified Liturgy, preferring instead to celebrate daily Mass; this has changed a trifle since Vatican II but still is the norm at least among Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholics, most of whom, I am told by members of these groups, have never seen the Presanctified Liturgy. So, please justify your edit as I'm inclined to revert it. I thank you, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, small minority or not, there are a significant number of Byzantine Catholics, more than some entire particular churches of distinct rites. Seems to me that that just putting them as a footnote was minimizing them too much. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
But, how many of them use the Presanctified Liturgy? I've known Byzantine catholic priests who have never used the Presanctified. It seems to me to be nearly entirely a liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, while, yes, there are a significant number of Byzantine Catholics (who are a small minority of users of the Byzantine Rite) very few users of the Presanctified are Byzantine Catholics and relegating them to a footnote seems fair and it does make the article flow more easily. Also, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to have to articles on Eastern orthodox liturgics have to note Byzantine Catholics in their opening sentences. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe just say Byzantine Rite to keep it general. oknazevad (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have copied this dialogue to the talk page for the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts and made your suggested change but also footnoting Byzantine Rite with references to the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches since "Byzantine Rite" is a rather esoteric term and I suspect that few Eastern Orthodox even realize that this term applies to their typicon. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Oknazevad/Archive 8".