User talk:DeathTrain

April 2017
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Agent Orange (band)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome
There is a lot of really useful info in those links, I suggest you check them out when you get the chance. Also, there's an example here of how we usually format talk pages. Don't let it overwhelm you; just keep doing what you're doing (making edits and asking for help when you need it) and you'll be an old hand in no time. Happy editing! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  17:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Justin Hunter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Score ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Justin_Hunter check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Justin_Hunter?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Splatalot!, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Murphy and Jake Goodman ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Splatalot%21 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Splatalot%21?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social Distortion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bass ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Social_Distortion check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Social_Distortion?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Derrick Henry
Actually after taking another look, you are right these are actually useful. Sometimes people go over the top with the headers, but not in this case. Feel free to revert, tho I would change the second one to something like "rushing yards leader" or something along those lines as it's kinda vague just saying leading the league.-- Yankees10 16:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you. DeathTrain (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Kelly (American football)
Hi, you reverted my edit without explanation so I reverted you. In disputes, it is generally advised to at least provide an edit summary explaining your side since this is a collaborative community.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I undid your edit as I was about to make a very significant edit to the article, as you previously removed those subheadings as "these sections will never fill more than a sentence or two for a reserve offensive linemen [sic]". But when you undid my edit while I was working on that next edit, my edit was cancelled and I had to start over from your edit, and I forgot what I was going to add. I was going to give my reason in my next edit, but you made me start over. I should have probably said why when I first undid your edit. DeathTrain (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In 2013, Kelly played in exactly 0 games for the Eagles, and in 2014 he started in all three games in played in. I do not believe having sections just for these seasons is appropriate, as there isn't much else content to add there, and entire sections should not consist of 1-2 sentences a piece.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe for the Eagles seasons, but not for the Titans seasons. But, moreover, what is wrong with having some sections only "1-2 sentences a piece [sic]"? The article needs to be expanded. DeathTrain (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to the Eagles sections only. I don't believe these sections can be expanded more than they already are, and permanent stub sections should be merged.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  14:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, maybe we can compromise and only merge the Eagles seasons. However, we will probably need a consensus, so how about we create a section on the talk page? DeathTrain (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted on the talk page.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  15:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Your addition to Mauritania has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe this may be a misunderstanding as I expanded the lead section of that article based on the article itself. What is the copyrighted material? I also see that my edit to that article is by and large intact.DeathTrain (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've undone the revision deletion to have a second look. It's a false positive, because what the bot detected was a quotation - which was subsequently removed . Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --DeathTrain (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Munchak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guard ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mike_Munchak check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mike_Munchak?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rikk Agnew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullerton High School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Heads-up
Just a fair warning, stuff like "I expect a prompt reply" isn't kosher here. Wikipedia is a volunteer service, we have other things going on in our life, other things we are working on, etc. Implying or outright stating that editors should be at your beck and call is ridiculous and borderline offensive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 21:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I just want to resolve this. Usually, if someone does not defend their position and ignores the other side's proposals to compromise, then it gives me the impression that they do not want to resolve this and/or that they are not taking it seriously. I will also admit that I found UCO2009bluejay earlier reply suggesting that "I just want my way" to be condescending, uncivil and assuming bad faith, which may have factored in my response. Note that my previous replies were more than civil, and it is only after UCO2009bluejay less-than-civil earlier reply followed by a period of continuous ignoration (several days) that I began being explicit in my expectation of a reply. --DeathTrain (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we also need to accept that there is no support for our (great) ideas. A lot of people have commented on the topic. People are not ignoring you, but maybe the topic is exhausted.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the apology. As observed, sometimes a lack of interest in an issue is more out of frustration that it keeps being brought up, even after editor's opinions have been made clear about something.
 * Elaborating a bit on what I said at WP:NFL, NFL bios generally follow two molds: professional career broken up by team or by season. Generally, I am not supportive of the breakdown by year. If a player had a short career, than a year-by-year breakdown is hardly necessary; if they had a long career, it becomes a massive, tedious mess (i.e. Peyton Manning). In both cases, the year-by-year approach invites recentism and excess detail. Thus, I always prefer a team-based approach. And with this type of approach, the section headers are somewhat pre-determined. That said, this approach doesn't preclude sub-sections. See Bob Mann (American football), which I have going through WP:FAC right now. You will note year sub-sections where applicable and some sub-sections based on important components of his career (Race, Legacy, Charges of blackballing, etc). That said, sub-sections shouldn't be overly specific (1k-1k, First Team All-Pro, etc) because they aren't meant to convey information to the reader, they are meant to organize the information in a clear way. Hope that all makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 15:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you believe in any sort of exception to this? If I condense seasons like with the Bob Mann article, can they still have titles, like with the Lawrence Taylor article? For example, if I were to condense the Titans seasons of the Delanie Walker article, could I still put headers like 2013-2014, 2015-2017: Pro Bowl seasons, 2018-2019: Injury-plagued seasons? What about for sections on college careers, which are normally no longer than four seasons? DeathTrain (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have the final say, I am just relating my experience and what I gleaned from past discussions on this topic. I really don't see a need or use for editorializing the section titles, especially since I generally don't support section titles being individual years. That said, since their really isn't a set standard, you are welcome to gain consensus at individual pages. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 17:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What about for college seasons? --DeathTrain (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should sections for college seasons be season-by-season as they are usually no longer than four seasons at most? DeathTrain (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see very many cases where season-by-season section headers are needed. Again, with recentism, recent college athletes like Joe Burrow get a lot of information, but it ends up being almost all game-by-game summaries, which is too detailed. Players like Herschel Walker are just a mess of too much info. That's my opinion and is probably not the gold-standard of Wikipedia. Generally a player's college section should cover awards won, season stats, team win/loss records, and record-breaking/championship/bowl games. Once it is cut down to that, section headers aren't usually needed. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 13:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you believe in any exceptions to that? Do you think that the college career sections for articles such as those of Derrick Henry, Peyton Manning, Vince Young, Patrick Mahomes or Tim Tebow are acceptable? Should there be a benchmark where season-by-season headings is acceptable for college seasons? DeathTrain (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean sure, like I said, this is just my belief. There are plenty others who think year-by-year headers are perfectly acceptable. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 20:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So if you believe that "this approach doesn't preclude sub-sections", would you say that the original question of "Should the season sections for players have headers on them?" is resolved? You said it is a case-by-case basis in you reply to the section headers I proposed for the Delanie Walker article. DeathTrain (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like I have given you my opinion on the matter and I feel like you received a good amount of input at WP:NFL. I am not sure there is much more that I can provide you, as I don't make the final decisions on these things. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 17:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so how can a final decision be made? DeathTrain (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mauritania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bidhan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Good one
Deathtrain, I thought this edit of yours at Talk:Hungary was your best effort yet on the Talk page. You stuck to a good line of argumentation based on policy, avoided any distractions that caused some pushback earlier, and kept on the straight and narrow of improving the article. Bravo. I don't know how it's going to turn out, but it really is about improving the article, not "winning" or "losing", and if you can come away from it afterward however it ends, with a sense of satisfaction that you did well, that's a good thing. Keep going on that path. I think you've upped your game, here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A similar discussion was also started in the talk page of the Russia article concerning whether Vladimir Putin should be mentioned in the lead section of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#Putin_in_lead_section It might interest you. I believe that the tension between WP:DUE, WP:RECENT and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is also relevant. DeathTrain (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I did have a look at that talk page, and even prepared a response with links showing how Russian, French, and German Wikipedias handle it. But in the end, it wasn't necessary, as  and  said pretty much all there was to say about it. At first, reading through the discussion I was disappointed at some of your repetitive comments there, until I realized they go back at least a week and then I cheered up.  I believe you have really evolved even just since then based on the change in tone I saw in your comments at Talk:Hungary, and that you wouldn't make the same arguments now at Talk:Russia as you did before (or at least, wouldn't insist on them, let's say, once they'd been responded to). Hope I'm not wrong about that!
 * Having said that, you can maybe kind of get what you want with a mention of Putin, although not in that article. the governing principle again here, is WP:DUE imho, although as you mention, WP:RECENTISM and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY both enter into it. Regarding WP:DUE, the narrower the scope of an article, the more likely it is that some event or period within that scope is worth mentioning.
 * Try this: there's an imperfect analogy we can use, by looking at WP:DUE as fluid volume; it's imperfect, because WP:DUE is by no means this mathematical; but it might help you think about it as a principle of proportionality. So it goes like this: think of Putin's 30 years of service, as 30 drops of water&mdash;(two tablespoons/30 ml.), let's say. That makes Russia's 3000 years of history (or whatever, I'm not a Russia scholar) a 3-liter container.  Now, if you pour the two "Putin tablespoons" into the 3-liter container, what have you got?  Almost nothing:  hardly visible in the bottom; i.e., WP:UNDUE. Now, suppose there was an article, History of modern Russia (there isn't; that's a redirect) starting with the Russian Empire in 1721. That's a span of 300 years, about a teacup (300 ml) of water. Now, the two tablespoons are definitely visible in the bottom of the teacup (so, possibly WP:DUE). And if you define Modern Russia as starting with the October Revolution (1917) now the container is only a double espresso cup (100 ml), and the "Putin" tablespoons fills up one third of it, so definitely WP:DUE and worth a mention in the lead.
 * The point here is, that the "Putin tablespoons" are a constant; whether it is worth mentioning Putin in the lead of some article, depends not on how important Putin is on his own, but in comparison to the scope of the article (the "size of the container"). So the same paragraph or sentence about Putin could be out of the question in "History of Asia", still wildly undue in "History of Russia", possibly due in "History of Russia since the Empire", and almost certainly DUE in "History of Russia since 1917". I hope this analogy makes sense!  Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is unreasonable to mention Putin, could it still be appropriate to give some kind of elaboration to post-Soviet Russia in the lead section of the article, particularly concerning issues such as human rights or corruption? DeathTrain (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * DeathTrain....take a look at this version of Venezuela (that you mentioned before) vs after cleanup....note links still there...but now just the facts.-- Moxy 🍁 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * DeathTrain, once again, anything post-Soviet in a "History of Russia" article, we're talking 3 decades in many centuries of history. I think if you *increased* the span of what you wanted to cover regarding human rights, it would be more justifiable. For example: can you expand the scope of the human rights content you want to add, instead of to post-Soviet Russia, to human rights in Russia since the Empire? In that case, it would be more likely to be WP:DUE. Certainly in the body of the article, you could say something about human rights; in the lead, that's not so clear. That's just my opinion, and to the extent that this is about improving the article, and other editors won't see it here, it would be better to discuss this on the article Talk page, rather than here. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still notice that the lead of the Venezuela article still contains significant recentism. DeathTrain (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No reply? DeathTrain (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It does and should be cuddled...my intent was to show you how there is no need to name anyone but still provide information in the link.-- Moxy 🍁 02:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find that the last paragraph is very fragmented and lacks significant contextual information. Also, there is a link to President Carlos Andrés Pérez in the lead section. Even if individual leaders are not named, they are still referenced, directly or indirectly. DeathTrain (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup ....normally there would be a link to an impeachment article.... however Venezuelan articles are underdeveloped....so in this case a direct link is needed to gain the information. Best move on from Advocacy  POV on broad topic overview articles.-- Moxy 🍁 02:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, just by mentioning that "a President" was impeached, a specific leader is being referred to. The mention of the 1998 Presidential election and the Bolivarian Revolution in the third paragraph of the lead are also references to a specific leader (Hugo Chavez), as is the mention of the "incumbent government" in the fourth paragraph (Nicolas Maduro). DeathTrain (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Clashes_of_policies DeathTrain (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comment on the discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Clashes_of_policies DeathTrain (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on the RFC at Russia talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#RFC:_Human_rights_in_leadDeathTrain (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An RFC was also created. Do you have anything to contribute on it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#RFC:_Human_rights_in_lead
 * Great news. After the RFC, there was not only a consensus to add human rights in the lead section, but also to mention Putin. Strangely, the addition that was made was largely the original sentence whose removal started the whole discussion.DeathTrain (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you have been surprisingly quiet concerning my invitations to participate in various discussions. DeathTrain (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm oversubscribed, sorry. I may get to it at some point, but there would likely be quite a delay, and it might not happen, as my to-do list just keeps getting longer, and the hours in the day stay the same. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. We already came to a consensus that not only mentions human rights, but also mentions Putin. There is no longer a need for you to contribute to the RFC.--DeathTrain (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cincinnati Ben–Gals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Russia
Your option C currently reads: Human rights in Russia have been rated poorly by human rights watchdogs. Russia's perceived government corruption is also ranked among the lowest in Europe.

I'm thinking "lowest" is a mistake on your part? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you can say that. What I meant was that corruption is measured lowly on a list of rankings.DeathTrain (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antoine Gérin-Lajoie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dion Lewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfred Morris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert
Hello. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia; however, I reverted your edit in the Isaiah Wilson article. It is unlikely readers would question the nationality of Wilson given that it is already indicated that he is an American football player and that he played with the Tennessee Titans and Miami Dolphins, both locations being in America, and that the article does not indicate he has any affiliation with any entity outside of the United States.

Also, as I just looked over your Talk page, it was clear to me that you are an active and constructive member of the Wikipedia community. However, it appears you have a habit of adding links pointing to disambiguation pages. Please identify what you are doing that causes that to happen and make adjustments in your editing accordingly. Again, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Rainbow Dash
Hello, DeathTrain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rainbow Dash, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:DeathTrain/Rainbow Dash


Hello, DeathTrain. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rainbow Dash".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of sports teams nicknamed Titans for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of sports teams nicknamed Titans, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of sports teams nicknamed Titans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)