User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 9

Active discussions

Your revert of my edit of the article United States Coast GuardEdit

You have reverted my edit of the article United States Coast Guard without resolving the issue of the oversize pictures that were recently posted. Upon reflection, I understand the reasoning behind the capitalization issue and have no problems with that part of your correction edit. Your edit summary did not cover the issue of pictures that, in my opinion, dominate the Uniforms section of the article. I have no problem with the pictures themselves, only the size in which they are displayed. If you have no objections, I will restore that portion of my edit later in the day. I encourage the continued improvement of the article. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad, that was a part of your edit I meant to retain, as I agree the images are too large. Must have gotten somehow lost in my edit. Feel free to restore the changes in size. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Roger, out... Cuprum17 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What is a Broadway theatre?Edit

I just got around to noticing some of the changes you have made to the Template:Broadway theatres. I noticed you deleted both the City Center and the Manhattan Center, because in the former case it was only used as a legitimate theater for a few years, and in the latter case, because it was built as an opera house. For the purposes of consistency, I think they need to be added back, and here's why: First, there are many theaters that went in and out of use as legitimate theaters. When I added them to the template back in 2008, my criterion was to be inclusive, and to have an exhaustive list of all those theaters that had ever been New York legitimate theaters according to the listing, as a starting point. Some were downtown and by today's standards might be considered off-Broadway, but if a theater had any legitimate productions or had ever been a member of the League of Broadway Theatres (as the City Center had been), then I included it. As for your classification of the Edison as not being "defunct" but being still "extant," while the shell of the space is still extant, the fact that it is no longer a "theater" in either a proscenium/arch, thrust, or in-the-round sense to my mind makes it "defunct." Also, shouldn't the entries for the Lyric (which I believe you added) and the Foxwoods be merged - again for consistency? We don't have separate entries for other theaters under multiple names. I haven't looked at all your changes, but I noticed these because I was looking for the entry of the Manhattan Center and tried to use the template to find it. I want to thank you for all of the clarifications and good changes you have made. I only disagree with these because 1) the usefulness of the template is increased if it is inclusive and exclusivity here serves no function (in other words, if I went to the template to help me find an article, and it wasn't linked because of an arbitrary classification, then the template failed in its utility), and 2) I want to be consistent about what is considered "extant"; what I meant by "extant" and "defunct" was that "extant" meant it still as use as a venue with permanent seating (so churches would count), but it is defunct if it's no longer a performing space except in a kind of temporary way (so hotel ballrooms would not count). Bruxism (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To answer these individually:
  • I removed City Center because, in the exact words of IBDB, it is "not a Broadway theatre", so I was just matching our main source for that.
  • For the Manhattan Center, I am unaware of any use as a Broadway theatre for a sit-down production (that is one that is non-touring, either limited run or open-ended.) Has it been used for theatrical productions, sure, but so has most any opera house: That's one of the characteristics the makes Broadway a unique place for theatre in the US: it's not just a stop for national tours, but a place where productions are specifically mounted for Broadway. Again, I don't know of any such use of the Manhattan Center in such a fashion; the Manhattan Center article certainly doesn't contain any significant mention of it.
  • I listed the Edison as extant former because one is very much capable of walking into the space in the present day, even if it cannot currently be used as a theatre. Same deal as the Liberty. In both cases they would require some major work to be used for theatre again, but they are both still existent buildings that show their theatrical heritage. It may be a fairly inclusive meaning of "extant", but none of the places listed in that section could load in a show with a weeks notice (except for the New Victory), so they're all pretty equivalent. The Hudson doesn't currently have permanent seating, either, but to remove it from extant former would be a mistake.
  • No, the Lyric and Foxwoods shouldn't be merged, as the latter is a whole new theatre that incorporates only some of the façade of the former, which was demolished. Likewise, the adjacent Apollo was demolished, but parts of its proscenium and dome were incorporated into the Foxwoods. But the Foxwoods is neither theatre, but a new theatre. That's why separate articles were created. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if the old Henry Miller's was split off from the Stephen Sondheim for the same reason; the modern theatre is a whole new space sitting behind the façade of the demolished former theatre. The only complication is that when the new theatre opened it originally retained the Henry Miller's name despite being a whole different building behind the façade. That's not true of the Foxwoods and the Lyric, though. So they get separate articles and separate entries.
Wow, that was more thorough than I expected. oknazevad (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Order on NYC Routes TableEdit

I understand why an alphabetical order on the routes table of the New York City Subway article might be preferred, but my reasoning for arranging them by trunk line was to help the reader see the table more clearly. For example, on the "A Division" table, all of the services are arranged by trunk line (even though that is only because that is how it worked out when routes were created), and I think it is easier to read, since the colors are all together, and all the "Seventh Avenue..." and "Lexington Avenue..." are together. On the "B Division" table, by alphabetizing the routes, the colors and primary lines are scattered all around the table. In the beginning, the reader is constantly flip flopping with blue and orange and the words "Eighth Avenue..." and "Sixth Avenue..." Also, in my opinion, I think that arranging the table by trunk line can help an average reader understand how NYC Subway routes are grouped. This is all only my opinion, and I thought I would let you know my reasoning. Mysteryman557 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

NASL AttendanceEdit

The issue was resolved when a definitive source was identified that couldn't be found originally, what's the proper protocol for showing the issue resolve then. Mak888 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Just mention and maybe link the source at the talk page as well, so others can see that that discussion is what lead to the resolution of the issue. Talk pages, especially ones with archives, are a record of the development of the article and serve to help an editor arriving late to the party understand how the article was developed. They're an important record and should be preserved. If the thread is outright deleted, then it never gets properly archived and the info lost. The only time threads should be removed/deleted outright is when it is clear trolling or other grossly insulting behavior. A good faith mistake, but not something to repeat.oknazevad (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gloria PatriEdit

hi! could you briefly explain why you translate the first 'et' as 'and', rather than as 'both', which the sense of the Latin requires? InfernoXV (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Because my Latin is a bit weak, and I was translating wird by word. That said, I also dispute the sense of the Latin, as "both" states there are two things following, when there are more than two.oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Olive (color)Edit

Discussion? What discussion? There wasn't any discussion, there was just you POV pushing that Olive isn't a shade of yellow, and that Avocado green isn't a shade of olive. I have started discussions on those topics, but in the meantime, I have reverted your removal of the shades of yellow template and category. pbp

Edit summaries at whiskyEdit

I was confused by what you meant by your edit summaries over at whisky. You reverted most of my changes, and then for some reason reverted them back. Also, the grain whisky article lists corn as one of the grains, and bourbon is made out of 51% corn, so would that not make it a grain whiskey? --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, accidentally hit the key too soon. Please don't put empty sections in articles. If you have something to add to an article, add it, but if all you have is a suggestion of what to add, put it on the talk page, 'not in the article. It looks amateurish and dumb. Hasn't been acceptable here in years. That's why I said "ugh"
As for the other changes, the issue I have is that they take a simplistic view of types. "Grain whiskey" is usually understood to mean high proof spirit aged in used barrels, while bourbon is by definition aged in new barrels. There's also the aspect that it can only be made in the US, so in that regard it is truly a regional style. Simply splitting the links based on whether a style has a geographic name or not is weak categorization. oknazevad (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree with your assessment. Thanks for the correction. Also, my intention it to make other improvements to whisky related articles, so perhaps keep an eye out for any other obvious errors that I accidentally introduce. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It'd be my pleasure. Don't forget to check out WT:SPIRITS as well, as they can often add good input. oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Report me?Edit

For a starter, I suggest you read the discussion first before you threaten to report me. This is not a constructive way to deal with any user. Join the discussion if you have a valid source that shows that Incheon Subway Line 1 is not part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, rather than threatening to report me or any user for that matter. Massyparcer (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I've reverted you while discussion is ongoing. It has not ended, and as an outside observer who has largely stayed out of the discussion except to remind people of policies (as I don't know enough about the system(s) to comment on them) I can say with certainty that there is no consensus. Period. As such, there should be no changes to the article while discussion is still ongoing.
Also, I'd really advise you to stop clogging up the edit history with minor edits correcting your errors. Take some more time to consider what you are writing instead of rushing to post. It makes for an easier time following the page, and makes for a calmer, better discussion.
The conspiratorial mentality isn't helping, either. You repeatedly accuse IJBall of bad faith. Yet here's an editor who has done lots of good work with this list and other transit-related lists, building up a good reputation. You, on the other hand, jump right into a confrontational tone within your first dispute. Bad way to edit; it leads to burn out. Fast. Take my advice, offered in good faith and with best intentions, if you want to last as an editor. Acting like there's bad feelings only leads to bad feelings. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
And may I ask what constitutes to a discussion ending? I guess there is no guideline for that on Wikipedia but 48 hours or more of no discussion should constitute to a consensus.
Hard to say,actually. There's no firm line. But there's also no rush (see WP:NOTFINISHED), so I tend to let at least a week go by before calling a discussion finished. It's the same time frame used for things like deletions and move discussions. Seems like a good practice.
Yes, I clogged up the edit history somewhat with minor errors, I apologize about that. I will try to get it right in one go next time.
Well, you did it here, too. Not always easy, but that's what the preview function is for.
I know that IJBall has otherwise good reputation on this field and that the conspiratorial mentality isn't helping but how would you feel if somebody is making continued claims with no sources that are so obviously original research, even deliberately manipulating references to skew other people's views? IJ's lying and accusing me of doing something I haven't done isn't helping either. I do not try to take things personally on Wiki and try to have a calm and constructive discussion as much as possible but IJBall's claims have no source if you look into it. And continued ignorance of the numerous sources that have been raised on the article is the root of this problem. The answer to this issue is already in the sources if you ask me. It is just that IJBall is refusing to accept the sources without giving a valid reason. It's not that I'm trying to accuse him of bad faith, the problem is that his attitude doesn't change and he grabs anything he can like unsourced claims or original research to avoid consensus, which doesn't help. Massyparcer (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that you've both rubbed each other the wrong way. I don't think he's lying (a very serious thing to say). I think he's trying to find a good way to summarize the actual practice of the industry without resorting to complicated mathematics. It doesn't help that the various industry sources he has found are vague as to what constitutes a "high level of throughput" or whatever else they vaguely use.
Also, you reverted the 10 min rule, which clearly has consensus if you look at the talk page. The vast majority have decided to remove it. No discussion since 16th January. Why did you revert that? Also, there was no more discussion about the removal of the "personal definition" from urbanrail since 16th January. You removed this as well. I suggest you put them back as per consensus and the sources. Massyparcer (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that just got swept up in the revert. Fell free to take it out again. I personally don't think it is a bad rule, and think it was first formed (not by me or IJBall) as a good faith attempt to show a high through put level, and it is similar to the criteria used at (Which is not some mere fansite, by the way, but the website of a published author in the field; Robert Schwandl is the exact sort of writer who's work we should be using as a source.) But I have been very concerned with over-strict application of it before, as has happened. I don't know what rule to replace it with though. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the sources seem to be vague about it. My thinking is that they have deliberately done so as it would otherwise cause the exact kind of problem we had before - Overstrict application of a certain cut-off number. Hence, I don't think we need to replace the 10 min rule with something else, definitely not an arbitrary number again when we don't have an official source that mention numbers. If there is something that clearly distinguishes a metro from a commuter rail that isn't on the list is "no specific station to station fare" as per the official source in the US Department of Transportation. I know that urbanrail is maintained by a writer who is pretty experienced in this field and I wouldn't really mind people quoting that as a reference so long as it is correctly using facts from the primary sources. The official sources so far do a more than good enough job of defining a metro with almost all metro systems here already meeting the 10 min rule anyway, and exceptions can be listed with a footnote as Valenciano pointed out. The problem is that we can't put his "personal definition" as a reference on the metro criteria part given that Wikipedia makes "personal opinion" fall under questionable sources and self-published sources (i.e. unreliable sources) as per WP:SOURCES, which is why I think there is consensus to remove it, at least from the metro criteria defining part. Massyparcer (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that we have a consensus on the Incheon Line 1 being part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway thing. No discussion since 20th January, when the official legal law from Incheon Transit, operator of Incheon Line 1 was published. Article 3 in its law states that Seoul Metropolitan Subway consists of all the lines operated by Incheon, Seoul and Korail, which also resolves the unsourced splitting claim. I will go ahead and make changes as per WP:Consensus and remove urbanrail's "personal definition" from the metro criteria defining part as per WP:Sources as explained above. Just letting you know in advance. Let me know if you have any concerns or issues. Massyparcer (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Airbus GroupEdit

Hi, I moved EADS to Airbus Group to maintain more than 10 yrs of edit history (which your redirect didn't). However I lost your new Airbus Group edit along the way. Apologies. Can you change the content from what is now the "old" EADS edit to your new Airbus Group edit? Thanks, Mark83 (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, will do.oknazevad (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
PS. You didn't have to do that. It wasn't a cut and paste move, but a merge. In those cases the edit history is preserved at the redirect that points to the target article, and it is considered a valid edit so long as the edit summary links to the former article so the edit history can be found. oknazevad (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
PPS, there was an edit from another editor lost completely in your reversion that had a reference that I do not have. Unless you have access to the edit history of the Airbus Group article from after the merge but before you deleted it to make way for the move (again, not something needed to be done), that information is now lost completely. oknazevad (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I've been hasty AND wrong here! Mark83 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Started a new conversation about kickingEdit

If you are interested I have started a new conversation at the kick article if you interested. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sweasey TheaterEdit

Sorry to have reverted your edits to Eureka, California but the official name of the theater on the National Register is Sweasey Theater. The current tenants named it "Arkley Center" but that doesn't change the NRIS name of the building. Also it is not puffery to say that the building was remodeled to it's mid-20th Century condition. That's a simple statement of fact about what was done to the building. It could have been reverted to its original condition - it was not. The architects chose to return it to a condition approximating the 1940s-1950s which would be mid-20th Century. Hope this makes the reversion clearer! Thank you for all your contributions to the project! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You do know the Arkley Theater is closed, right? I have changed the section again to read

"The Richard Sweasey Building, originally built in 1920, was remodeled in 2007 [1] and served as home of the Eureka Symphony[2] until it closed in 2013.[3]" The building can't be called "The Arkley Center" anymore, it's closed. The name reverts to the historical name which isn't an "outdated" name - it's permanently installed in the terra cotta on the front of the building and local people call it the "Sweasey". Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I did read that they were using their off season to make some repairs and such, but was unaware they didn't yet reopen. And you make a good pint about the description. I like the text you've put there and will not revert. Good stuff, actually. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FILA Grappling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sambo (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) 09:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Third Counterweight for B&OCT Bascule Bridge and the St. Charles Air Line Bridge?Edit

Hi, you removed the dubious tag from the Grand Central Station (Chicago) article regarding the third shared counterweight for the above mentioned bridges. I would kindly ask you to supply a reference to support this claim. I left a message on the talk page of the article why I think this third counterweight claim is actually dubious – if you think this should be discussed further then I kindly ask you to participate on the article's talk page. Tony Mach (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Atlantic city rail lineEdit

Please indicate where on the timetable it says North and South. In fact the entire NJ Transit system operates on east-west (including the NE Corridor/NJ coast). Thanks. --Mblumber (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Employee timetable, of which I cannot find my copy at the moment (away from my desktop on my phone), but it is actually the strange distinction of the ACL that it is north/south despite the rest of the system being east/west, even for the liens that are actually more north/south in orientation. oknazevad (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Center Stage TheaterEdit

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to edit the Center Stage wikipedia page. Previously, it's true, we did use one word for "Centerstage" but we are currently attempting to shift our brand to two words. Our logo has yet to be finished, but as you can see in the copy of our website, we're making an effort to separate the words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahbix (talkcontribs) 17:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, just noticed that, and moved the page accordingly. That said, since it seems you are affiliated with the company, be careful of our conflict of interest guidelines so we can all edit happily. oknazevad (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I.P. VandalsEdit

Greetings, as you are well aware I'm sure, there are two I.P. users going around vandalizing dozens of military history-related articles. They are (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs). Since you are a much more experienced editor than I, what would be your course of action to mediate this? I'm thinking of raising this matter on the Military History portal. Yours truly, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was only aware of the one, in the range. That said, I don't know if I'd call this vandalism, as WP:AGF compels me to assume that the IP editor is just interpreting WP:INFOBOXFLAG too strictly, having missed the part about the exception for military uses (which are entirely appropriate as military forces explicitly represent the countries, thereby not raising the other concerns about undue weight that led to the usual call for removal). That said, boy does the IP edit quickly and with a very particular pointer, which makes me suspicious that this is not a new editor, and one who may be engaged in sock puppetry. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I went to his talk page to discuss this with him, but he resorted to insulting me (there and on other articles). In any case, I have reported him. The 50.121 appears to be a sock puppet of 24.44 (he himself admitted as much), which, as you said, could be a sock puppet of somebody else. Best of regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's rude! looks like he'll be only here for a short while, especially with the admitted socking (not well tolerated). Good. Now just to undo the damage he did. Some of the edits were legit, but most were the bad ones discussed here. oknazevad (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I think I've got most of his edits reverted, but I may have missed some. If you can find any that I missed, please revert them if you can. Take care! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nippon Budokan 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:
  • November the Budokan is a 2 day-venue for the annual Japan Self-Defense Force Music Festival.<ref>[, www.dvidshub.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Major League Lacrosse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessmentEdit

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Epicgenius (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith editsEdit

You are consistently undoing my edits with no valid rationale. I have tried to be civil with you and address this on the pertinent article Talk Pages. Yet you have persisted. I now must take this to wikipedia authorities.Dogru144 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't undone an edit of yours in quite some time. I did rewrite a section because of the need to integrate new information that you had previously worked on, but that is normal editting. That's perfectly acceptable. oknazevad (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have undone two significant contributions of mine, despite my good faith efforts on the Talk Page. You failed to justify your insistence on two different articles on the same line, when there are precedents of joint interstate commuter lines, as I explained at length. The fact that time had elapsed is immaterial. Therefore, I have reported you.Dogru144 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

About BsBsBs.Edit

I have to thank you for undoing BsBsBs's SPA tagging of everything I wrote. I think he is getting way too emotional about's as if I'm his "enemy" that he wants gone..he seems unable to control his emotions. I have warned him multiple times not to violate WP:NPA, but personal attacks seems part of his way of going around with editors he doesn't like. He's clearly abusing the talk page at List of metro systems as a platform to drive me out with groundless rumors. I just have a niche interest in Seoul just like other editors here (BsBsBs could be accused of SPA with his Munich S-Bahn if that's the case) and do not put it over any Wiki policies. If there are no sources, I quit editing and go look for evidence. I don't know what to do..other editors seem to be scared off on dealing with Munich S-Bahn because of him. Massyparcer (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing illegitimate about having a niche interest, nor is there anything illegitimate about starting out as an anon IP editor and then registering a username after some time, unlike what BsBsBs's BS section about your previous IP edits (presuming that it is you) was implying.
That said, I do wish you would be more neutral, less wordy and not make dozens of corrections to your posts after your initial response. (I've mentioned the latter before; take more time to compose what you want to say.) Also, don't change your posts after someone else has responded. That is considered a violation of the talk page guidelines.
Also, please understand that no one is out to get you (except maybe BsBsBs); most editors just want an accurate list and feel that the first-party sources you have been posting aren't neutral enough to be reliable. It's an easy topic to get caught up in nationalist politics, even from official sources, so we're skeptical. But there is no conspiracy.
For your sake, I'd recommend ignoring BsBsBs outright. His slavish inability to admit he read a source wrong is getting annoying, but his near-harassment of you is going to get him in trouble (I have no qualms about hauling him off to WP:ANI for an interaction ban). If he persists in this behavior, it will only hurt him. Don't respond.
PS, try poking around in other areas. Yes, clearly your primary area of interest is Seoul, but there's lots of stuff out there to cover. Take a break from editing about Seoul for a bit and try your hand at other things. You might just like it! oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I do agree with you that I need to be more neutral and focused on what I write. As you know, I only started out on Wikipedia this year, so I'm still learning Wiki policies and guidelines. But when BsBsBs is making relentless accusations to me and ignore Wiki policies of pure civility, I do get hurt. And that seems to make me write more and more to tell him to stop doing that. It's a viscous cycle. And the best thing to do as you say, seems to ignore him. Or quit editing at least for the time being. I go to work and come home just like other people, and can't spend all my time on defending groundless accusations from BsBsBs. As for Seoul, I think we're all mostly relying on primary sources to get data like track length or station counts. So I'm basically following suit with other editors. Anyways, I will take your advice and go for a break from editing Seoul..thanks again for your advice. It's good to know that there are reasonable editors on that article. Massyparcer (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Airline navbox imagesEdit

I'm okay with the image being removed for space reasons. However I read your edit summary. In fact Willis Tower houses the United world headquarters, so I don't think it's fair to say that it has "nothing" to do with the company WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And as for this edit summary I think the reason why the headquarters buildings are being posted is that they are in place of the company logos. According to the fair use company, people are not allowed to use fair use logos in templates. Now, do you think it would be a better representation to show the airplanes themselves? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The planes themselves would go so vastly superior as to be a no-brainer.
But I don't think we need any picture there. As I said in my US Airways edit summary, an image of an office building is an exceedingly poor representation of an airline. Just terrible, actually. Especially a building like the Willis Tower that is hardly identified with the airline. People don't associate an airline with an office building. So using it is clearly an attempt to put something there for the sake of putting something there. That alone means it can be tossed out without negative impact.
In general I'm not a fan of images in company navboxes; they're almost always decorative fluff, running against the guidelines for navboxes not to be excessively decorative. So I oppose the addition of any image. oknazevad (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 MarchEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Soccer Bowl picture editEdit

Seeing as NONE of the other pictures are of the particular Soccer Bowl games that they reference, the rationale for your revert of the caption is just plain silly. Moreover, had you looked up the photo itself on Wikimedia (i.e. click on the image), you'd have discovered that its description is: The Thunder host the Wizards in the US Open Cup -the image title is ThunderWizards.JPG -that it is dated: June 30, 2009 -and that it was uploaded: June 14, 2009 -which is well over two years before you claim the photo was taken on October 22, 2011. Based on all of this information, there is no justification whatsoever for your revert. I do not participate in edit wars, I would only ask you to rethink your own actions regarding the caption. -Creativewill (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Woah! Chillax! You are correct, I should have realized that it wasn't a Soccer Bowl game at all. My bad. As such, and that said, I think the picture should be removed outright. If it doesn't illustrate and actual Soccer Bowl match, it is purely decorative, not informative, which is discouraged by our guidelines, and it (obviously) leaves a false impression that it is of one of the games, which makes it's inclusion even more dubious. It should be realigned putright, which I shall do. oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It's your choice as to how you want to handle it, but personally I think that by captioning the photo as a two-time host for game 1 of the finals, it did not mislead one into thinking the photo was from the finals (as perhaps it may have done so to you, before my edit, when only one game was listed). In general on wikipedia, unless a particular caption specifically says "Super Bowl XVII" or "Battle of Gettysburg" or whatever the image might show, I never assume more than what the caption describes. Just my two cents. -Creativewill (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

59.101 IP VandalEdit

I just restored a redirect that this vandal who is IP hopping deleted on the back of your reversion. Clearly we have a trouble maker here. Do you have any idea how to deal with this issue? (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. hopefully that will end this trollish behavior. oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It didn't. He did it again on PWI's List of Wrestling World Heavyweight Title Reigns by length and List of professional wrestling World Title reigns by length. (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

About reference formats (from x86-64)Edit

You wrote "even though the spacing is unneeded and just bloats the coding, along with making the body text more difficult to parse while editing". That is your opinion. Many WP editors are of the opinion that putting each template parameter on a separate line vastly improves readability and editability of both the template and the article copy. If we didn't, we wouldn't have coded the template call that way. And the "coding bloat" amounts to a few characters per line. So, thank you for not persisting with those changes. Jeh (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

To each their own. Personally I find it makes it it's difficult to see the readability and flow of the body text that way, especially when there are multiple references for the sentence. (Though that sort of reference overload is a different problem, and can be a sign of WP:SYNTH issues.) oknazevad (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

MGP IndianaEdit

We have no reliable sources referring to LDI as MGP Indiana. On the contrary, the Cowdery article, which was written a year after the purchase by MGP, consistently refers to that plant as LDI. So I plan to revert that name change. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. As noted by Chuck here, the LDI name is a former name. See also here and here. I may have made an error in that it seems it is actually MGP of Indiana. Either way, though, the LDI name is no longer current and correct. oknazevad (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I'll accept that as reliable sourcing. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Long Island Rail Road navboxEdit

Really? The title for that subgroup looked a little out of balance to me. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's just because the differing lengths of the two group names. But the default to right aligned is standard, as it puts the group name more directly next to the group list. I see no real reason to change the default here. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal Ordinariate of St Mary of WalsinghamEdit

Why did you revert my edit?Poshseagull (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You messed up, putting the new text inside an existing reference, breaking the markup. It also lacked a valid citation, which is absolutely needed for a direct quote. If you think it's needed, try again, with a proper reference. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

New York City FC editEdit

Hi, wanted to let you know I undid your undoing of my edit. While it's true that the stadium development is in progress and the team will play in Yankee Stadium, that particular sentence describes the state of affairs at the time of the league's announcement. And should things change, i.e. the team starts playing at Yankee Stadium and the progress stalls or completes, the sentence remains correct because it's describing things from the past point of view. Check out verb tense consistency for a better explanation than mine. Mosmof (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Need Your Advice...Edit

Hi Oknazevad! I'd like your advice on something - I've run across the following series of articles: Charleroi Metro line 54, Charleroi Metro line 55, Charleroi Metro line 84, Charleroi Metro line 88, Charleroi Metro line 89. The issue here is that these lines no longer exist, as they were replaced with Charleroi Metro line 1 thru Charleroi Metro line 4 in 2012-2013. So the Charleroi Metro line 54 thru Charleroi Metro line 89 articles are completely out-of-date (and irrelevant). Yet, when I checked Wiki's WP's deletion policy, there's no mention made of deleting old articles that have been rendered obsolete by new developments and new articles. So, I'm stumped - what should be done with the Charleroi Metro line 54 thru Charleroi Metro line 89 articles? What's the proper Wikipedia process for them?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, per the concept of "once notable, always notable", they should be kept, actually.
That said, I don't know this system at all. If the old lines (with their rather high line numbers) each roughly correspond to one, or part of one, of the current lines, then redirecting to the corresponding current line might make sense. Or we could redirect to the main article, but that might be reverted quickly. The other option is to merge them into a Former lines of the Charleroi Metro article, which has a short explanation that the system used to use one service pattern, of the high numbers, and now uses the newer service pattern. It could then list which stations each old line used.
Either way, I think the outdated headway info should be removed (it's too much like a timetable anyway).oknazevad (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's some good advice. Thanks! I'll chew your suggestions over for a while (though, initially, I'm thinking that bundling them into one article might be the best solution...) In any case, it's likely to be a couple of weeks before I do anything substantive with them, as I'm busy in real life right now. Thanks again... --IJBall (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


your reasoning of saying "there wasn't an edit for 3 weeks" is not reasonable. Can you give a more specific reason for reverting my edit of NBA being a current event? I don't mean to come off as rude.Vinethemonkey (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey

Those tags are reserved for when the article is rapidly changing due to frequent updates related to specific ongoing events, not just for anything that may be in tomorrow's newspaper. Just as we don't put the tag on, say, the article on the United States just because there is constant news coming out of the country, we don't tag the main NBA article just because this season's playoffs are ongoing. The lack of any updates in the last three weeks just confirms the idea that there isn't the sort of rapid changes that the tag is supposed to indicate. In fact, it is quite reasonable, and in line with the template's documentation. To quote that documentation:

As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.

It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.

oknazevad (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Miami Central Station Miami Intermodal Center MergerEdit

Hi! I just noticed that you participated in a discussion about merging Miami Central Station and Miami Intermodal Center 5 years ago. I just merged them per WP:BOLD and wanted you to review it/comment about what you think.- Aalox (Say HelloMy Work) 14:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SanJoseEarthquakes 2008.pngEdit


Thanks for uploading File:SanJoseEarthquakes 2008.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cruzan Rum may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • '''Cruzan Rum''' {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|r|uː|ʒ|ən}} is a [[rum]] producer located in [[Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. It is owned by [[Beam Suntory]]. Their distillery was founded in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Oknazevad/Archive 9".