User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 18

Major airlines of the US - Time for page protection ?
Looking at the history it's clear to see that the page suffers every month with inappropriate edits made both by editors who don't know any better and those that should. It's not a major assault, but it's steady one, with at least a couple times a month and some months many more. It's a very focused article with a minimal amount of information that needs only to be updated once a year, so the need for unfettered access by IP users is not there (they seem to do a lot of the bad edits). I was thinking if not WP:SEMI then at least WP:PC status. You'd need to be made protected changes reviewer but that's a minor detail and easily done. Have you ever requested any of these protections for that article in the past? If not, I think it might be a good idea. What do you think?  spintendo   01:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While it is annoying to have to revert editors that ignore the obvious sources and comments in the code, the level of disruption on the page would be judged by an admin as too insignificant to warrant even temporary semi-protection. As long as we both keep it on our watch lists so we can easily revert well-meaning but mistaken editors, it'll be fine. oknazevad (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thnx!   spintendo   02:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

TheFamousPeople.com as a source
Hi Oknazevad. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source in Piltdown Man. Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for biographical information, and is a poor source overall. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not add any sources to that article. I think you may have misread the edit history. oknazevad (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I misread my own contributions. I simply copied that source from the Clarence Darrow article, where it was used to establish his date of death, which is what I was doing at the Piltdown Man article to replace the cn tag. I'm sure I can find a better source quickly. oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-Off-Broadway
What do you think if this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence strikes me as a little too strident, but it does flow pretty well and is pretty accurate. In many ways the biggest difference is tha Off-Broadway is unambiguously professional, regardless if it's commercial or non-profit, while Off-Off-Broadway is more ambiguous, with "pay", if one can call it that, that barely covers cab fare and lunch. Even in the non-profit sector the economics of running in a venue smaller than 100 seats is just not viable for fully professional operations. (And I'm not referring to just actors, but staff as well. Certainly any venue that small is not likely to have contracts with IATSE locals. But that's just this IATSE apprentice's opinion.) So the formal contract definition correlates with the reality of professional viability, but it also reflects the un-commercial intentions. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

AT&T Page comment.
I did not know that was shouting plus forgot to on my caps. I apologise.

BBMatBlood.

Artificial leather?
Hello Sir, Greetings! as long as the addition in i feel this is certainly not any spam. Its scientific research based authentic information (with proper citations) purely related to the topic Artificial leather. Kindly have second thought on it. Regards --Ygdes (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's not been established as a product, just announced via press release. That falls under WP:NOTNEWS. One of the sources is a primary source, meaning it doesn't demonstrate notability. Plus it's WP:UNDUE, as it warrants at most a sentence, not a whole section. oknazevad (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if i am not fully satisfy with the reasons & logic behind the norms but still thanks a lot for your side explanations ... will take care ... Rgds --Ygdes (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

LIRR at Sunnyside Yard
So the Arch Street Shops and Harold Interlocking are not part of Sunnyside Yard? Because the LIRR uses those. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Harold is an interlocking on the revenue tracks that controls all across throughout the area, but is not within yard limits, and the Arch Street shops are a separate, if nearby, property which cannot even provide direct access to Sunnyside Yard. We don't actually have an article on the Arch St Shops, which is odd to me. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop removing tags without addressing the issues raised
The Traveller article is full of original research, too much to tag individually. Please stop removing the tags calling attention to those problems. Whateley23 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The tags are spurious, based on you reading far too much into the article. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An article with no citations but extensive theoretical taxonomical and thematic structures is original research. There are hardly any citations for an article of that length, and none in some sections that describe things as factual (notably the "Key features" and "Adventures" sections, but not limited to those). The lack of supporting citations is exactly what is meant by "original research". That's not me reading anything into anything. Whateley23 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources seem obvious to me: the game's rulebooks. It's a matter of needing better citations, not editors creating things de novo. In short, it's the wrong tag. Now, please let's keep the discussion on one place, the article talk page, where editors who actually added the material might want to chime in. (I didn't, I just added the page to my watchlist years ago after I took a look and saw that it was horribly misformatted with completely incorrect headers in style and number.) oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty familiar with Traveller. None of the material there is to be found in that form in the game's rulebooks. There is, for example, a list of six things that Traveller is about in the beginning of the T5 rulebook, but it doesn't match up well with the "Key features" section of the article here. Whateley23 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd be happy to keep the discussion on that talk page. Whateley23 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rockefeller Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roxy Theatre ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rockefeller_Center check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rockefeller_Center?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources are the preferred source
Contrary to your edit summary statement here: "completely invalid understanding of primary sourcing (which is not only valid for establishing basic facts without analysis, it is completely better for credits than unreliable third party sites)" is directly contrary to Identifying reliable sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It does not say that it should be based on primary source, so switch to 3rd party sources are correct and preferred. The reversal of said edits there for are disruptive in nature ("disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia."). Spshu (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PSTS and the guidelines for film and television articles. For basic facts, such as the credits of a film or television series, primary sources are not only acceptable, they are preferred for accuracy. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, repeatedly removing sourced information that's a standard part of TV series articles is what is truly disruptive. oknazevad (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, the removal of reliable sources, as a above is considered a sign of distruptive editing. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why do you keep removing reliably sourced information about release dates? And please actually read the film and TV guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Except you are. You have been provided quotes from guidelines that clearly state secondary source article are the preferred sources. The release date is still in the ibox. When you can read RS and PSTS with out your ability to read it the way you like I will read the film and TV guidelines which is about the time I can find them since they seem so buried right now and they do not trump RS or V. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the infobox, I'm talking about the home video section, which is standard across TV and film articles. Just because you're too lazy to actually find and read the guidelines, doesn't mean you're not in the wrong. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have issues with Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series), You should raise them on the talk page, it really doesn't help when it looks like you're removing sourced content. It doesn't help it splitting your comments over peoples talk pages for a specific article, it would be more help to use the article talk page to raise issues, thanks. Govvy (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oknazevad, quit with the personal attacks that is a sign of losing the argument.
 * , your behavior (act contrary to the more basic rules) is not an issue with the article there for properly direct at you and Oknazevad at your talk page. Spshu (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My behaviour? I reverted you only once because I believe your edits are incorrect, when that happens you should goto the article talk page to explain the issues you have with an article. On evidence from your talkpage it seems you're prone to being uncivil and edit-war with other users. I suggest you either communicate correctly on the article talk-page or leave the article to other editors. Govvy (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Spshu needs to let go of the idea that the broader guideline always trumps the more-specific one. For someone who has edited D&D related articles, he'd do well to remember one of the main principles of the games rules: specific trumps general. While that may not always be true here at Wikipedia (because of WP:CONLIMITED), the inverse is not inherently true, either. Someone who has never edited an article before barging in and forcing a particular reading of a guideline claiming it's "proper practice" without bothering to check if an article has a consensus to ignore the supposed rule (itself a core policy) is just plain annoying. Especially when it's a standard part of articles of that type, where clearly there was an extensive discussion that quite probably had more involved editors that some of the guidelines, meaning the claimed rule is the actual WP:CONLIMITED. I'm really tired of the tail-wagging-the-dog, uncollaborative, nature of guideline warriors. oknazevad (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sports teams, singular vs. plural; English variations, prior discussions
When it comes to sports teams, common American English usage employs the singular or plural depending on the team name ("United" vs. "Tigers"). Even if a team's website apparently employs a plural (e.g. DC United) - ordinary media reports do not. This rule of thumb is described, albeit obliquely, at Manual_of_Style. So I disagree with wholesale changes to MLS team names to turn them all to plural, at least not without a general consensus on what's common, and I suppose, whose "common" controls. I've been looking around a bit for more extended discussion on this particular issue and figure there must've been some, but haven't found it; and I thought that you might be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'm not the one making the blanket changes, Sabbatino has been doing that. I actually reverted him in one case. I also happen to be the one who added that part of MOS:PLURALS. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I know you agree, and I think he needs a consensus to make wholesale changes against what - to me anyhow - seems to be common usage. I was hoping to learn if this had been hashed out somewhere else before, so we weren't reinventing anything.  I do think BTW that I'm going to open a discussion at DC United about this.  Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Three Card Poker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ante ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Three_Card_Poker check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Three_Card_Poker?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mississippi stud moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Mississippi stud, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Health Effects of Whiskey
Whiskey has health effects. This is an important public health problem.
 * The alcohol in whiskey is no different than the alcohol in vodka, gin, rum, wine, or beer. The health effects of whiskey are not unique, and do not need to be called out, especially above the production process that defines the class of drinks. It's plainly WP:UNDUE, and clearly intended to push a POV, which fits with the rest of your contributions that very much look like you are here for only one purpose. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made hundreds of edits to wikipedia. If you look at those edits, you will discover that I am obviously not here for one purpose and that my POV is to include information in wikipedia articles that are relevant and of interest to wikipedia readers. Obviously, health effects of whiskey are relevant and of interest to readers. Your removal of this material is inappropriate and is inconsistent with good editing practice.Sbelknap (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion in one place. As it's about article content, it should remain at the article talk page, where I have already responded. oknazevad (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two issues. One has to do with the article content. The other has to do with your disruptive editing behavior.

Gino Gambino
Hi. According to a previous discussion, Gambino is not part of BC since there is no reliable sources about him as official member. You can see the discussion in BC talk page. However, if you have news, you can start a new discussion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Video of his induction. His declaration of loyalty (note the response from Tama)]. Outdated conversations based on false assumptions do not need to be permanently adhered to. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Curad


The article Curad has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Curad for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Curad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Curad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Stuff
You have captured my thoughts exactly, and my intention here tonight was to initiate a process if there is no immediate resolution. William Harris •  (talk) •  10:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * His ability to just not listen to others, a behavior he's shown before, is astounding to me. He's usually a fine editor, but when he gets something in his head that he's sure is right, it is very difficult to dislodge even with evidence, such as the sources already in the article. Makes it difficult to work in a collaborative project like this. oknazevad (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hartford Line speeds
I do believe Amtrak-operated trains are actually operating at 110mph on the corridor - note this schedule, where Amtrak-operated trains are scheduled for 1:23 to 1:25, and CTrail trains for 1:35. The question is whether those Amtrak-operated trains are considered part of the Hartford Line service. They're being subsidized by the state, and included on Hartford Line schedules, so I'm leaning towards yes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning no, because Hartford Line trains are separately operated by a different contractor. Same tracks, different services, just as Shore Line East is separate from the NE Regionals and Acela Express.
 * State subsidies of Amtrak trains are not uncommon, nor is the listing Amtrak trains where cross-honoring of passes is accepted on commuter schedules. The latter is seen on MARC and VRE schedules, and was also historically done by NJ Transit for the Clocker. That doesn't mean they're MARC or VRE trains, though. Same thing here, so what the operating speeds are of Amtrak trains on the New Haven–Springfield Line doesn't change the operating speeds of Hartford Line trains. oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Pepsi Real Sugar can.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Impact Wrestling
I reverted this edit of yours. First of all, two of the three sources you use are not good sources, Daily Mirror a tabloid newspaper and a SB Nation blog where there is no editorial oversight. Second and more importantly, all three IC don't in any way use the word second when referring to Impact. I also am going to clean up the preposterous opening paragraph where two IC are each used twice on the same sentence....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh, no skin off my teeth. I wouldn't call the Daily Mirror the best source, but it's not been ruled utterly unreliable like the Daily Mail. oknazevad (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All right. If you find some reliable source that verified that sentence, feel free to re-add it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Back bacon
You reverted my addition of wiki links in the lead of back bacon. The lead is making a very important defining statement about the article subject, i.e. that it is most commonly used in Britain and Ireland, and yet neither of those 2 subjects are wikilinked. They would normally be in any other article. I did consider linking to just the geographical articles for the entities but that didn’t seem appropriate. Where should they be linked to, in your opinion? Fob.schools (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Those countries fall under the "major geographical features" aspect of WP:OVERLINK. I don't think they need to be linked at all. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Overlink is very clear that you don’t link such stuff ‘’”...unless there is a contextually important reason to link:”’’. I’d strongly suggest that the cuisine of these places would be highly appropriate in this case, but if you want to make the encyclopaedia a less useful place for readers, then so be it. Fob.schools (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The wikilinks that added to the lede can certainly be useful to some readers. To comply with the style suggested at WP:EASTEREGG, all that needs to be done is just to use the linked article's title (i.e. "..cuisine") instead of the country's name. 135.23.239.118 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good call. oknazevad (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

United States Coast Guard: Commissioned officers
You may believe that my note is "excessive and trivial," however, it remains that the images are incorrect. As this in an "encyclopedia" should we not strive for accuracy?

It is certainly not "trivial" to the officers who wear (or who have worn) the rank insignia(s) in question that they be depicted correctly. (Most people do not know that the military services, i.e., Army and USAF, use a different style of insignia than do the naval services. There are similar notes posted on the U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy officer rank insignia, and the U.S. Marine Corps pages, as well as notes re the incorrect insignia bar illustrations on the first lieutenant and second lieutenant pages.

Perhaps the verbiage could be truncated somewhat, but in order to explain why the images shown are incorrect a certain degree of explanation is required.CobraDragoon (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What I think we should do is contact, who made the necessary adjustment to the corresponding Navy illustration and has worked extensively on the U.S. uniforms articles and see if he can fix the illustrations for the Coast Guard insignia as well. Hopefully he can help. I would fix the illustration myself but am away from a computer with such capability for the next few days (I'm typing his on my phone). Or we could contact the graphics desk and see if there's a volunteer that would do it for us. But the note, while well intentioned, doesn't really solve the issue, while being overly wordy. oknazevad (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW I agree with Oknazevad's revert on the USCG page and have done same on the USN page. I get that it's important to the people that wear these insignia, but that is not what we base content on. As you say, this is an encyclopaedia, but I think it seems silly to present info, then add a note saying the info presented is wrong. We should work with the editors here and at Commons that create/upload these images, to get the correct images, asap. That is the best way to address this. (imho) - wolf  02:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. If it's so wrong as to require a note, it should just be removed until it's fixed. If it's not so bad as to require removal, then calling out the error instead of just working to correct it is counterproductive. oknazevad (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * All right then; can one of you folks who is more fluent than I with the "behind the scenes" processes of Wikipedia make the appropriate requests to effect the needed changes? Thank you all for your input and assistance.CobraDragoon (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Liturgical colours
Apostles and Evangelists are not Martyrs? Michalbr10 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the source, Evangelists and Apostles are specifically listed separately, so we should do the same. Plus, tradition is that John the Evangelist was not martyred, so it's not universal either way. oknazevad (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but on John's Day liturgical colours is white. Michalbr10 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The point remains that we accurately represent the source. Anything else is WP:OR. oknazevad (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AzFallLeagueLogo.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:AzFallLeagueLogo.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluegrass ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Poaceae check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Poaceae?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

USL Icons
I noticed that you reverted the edit for the stadium icons. I disagree with that. It's a lot easier to look at the icons than to squint to see what the footnote says, especially when they are impossibly small to read. And I don't need to increase the screen magnification to read it. Also, if you noticed, there are icons for the coaches nationality on that table. So tell me what is the difference? Roberto221 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion ongoing at the article talk page. Let's keep it there. oknazevad (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Mystara
You recently reverted my edit to Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set. Thank-you for the detailed edit summary but I am afraid that you are mistaken. While the basic set does indeed contain no mention of the surrounding world (although monster listings could be regarded as setting specific), the D&D expert set which is part of the rules was published with a map of the known world in it which is continued by the companion set which contains a map of all of Mystara or a significant proportion of this.

If the edit is indeed 'very poor' then I would suggest you improve it or even give the feed back to me rather than a straight off reversion.

Thank-you for reading, El komodos drago 09:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El komodos drago (talk • contribs)
 * Well, since that is not in the Basic Set, I'd say it doesn't belong in the article about the Basic Set. oknazevad (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As it stands, Wikipedia mentions the expert rules, companion rules, master rules and immortal rules and other expansions to the basic set under the title of the basic set. This is the section heading on the page for D&D revisions and since they are expansions to the system of the basic set I have never heard anyone suggest that when players move from the 3rd level to the 4th level they change from one setting to another. Further the equipment and monsters listings in the basic set (which are part of the setting) are simply expanded upon by the mentioned expansions.


 * I will admit that 'the basic set' is not the best name to call the whole system by but as the basic set page and the editions of D&D page both treat the expert rules and its adventures as a part of a revision to the basic set and as they are clearly a expansions that allow players to continue playing the basic set it seems clear to me that the world that they (and almost definitely the basic set) are set in should be mentioned there.


 * Thank-you for your speedy reply, El komodos drago 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El komodos drago (talk • contribs)

November 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hi there. Please don't do any more edits like this one. We had the discussion. You lost. Get over it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * That "discussion" is in the wrong place, had no pointer at the actual article, and only three editors agreeing to remove it while two opposed. That's not sufficient. Oh, and an edit warring template when it's the first edit I made on the page in months? You were reverted by multiple editors, ran off to a little corner, had a "discussion" with insufficient participation and split input at best, and now claim consensus. That's plain bull. If anything is WP:CONLIMITED, it's that. Where's the notification on the actual article talk page?!? oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion was at the "wrong place"? Where should it have been, in your opinion? Yes, I do claim consensus. If you've a proper reason these articles should break MOS:ALLCAPS, the discussion was still open last I saw. Rather than throwing your dummy out of the pram, why don't you do that? Or as I say, get over it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's in the wrong place in that there's no notification on the article actually affected. MOS:ALLCAPS is for body content mostly, and a valid reason for deviating in one spot of the article (in the metacontent of the infobox, no less) has been given. It's also established practice across the entire class of articles, indicating a clear consensus by article contributors. Opposing arguments seem based entirely on personal preference.
 * Most importantly, you yourself said it, the discussion is still open. Making the very change being discussed when there's only a couple of contributors to the still-open, day old, discussion, and doing such in a manner entirely prejudicial to the discussion when you've been reverted by multiple editors is the actual act of edit warring. While the discussion is ongoing the status quo ante remains. That's the way it works around here. My reversion was entirely based on restoring that status quo. I really can see both sides of the discussion (except calling the other position "lame", which is just rude), and so thus far have witheld any opinion. oknazevad (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm unimpressed. Really? Cite please.  Not that I noticed, no.  Nope, absolutely not. Only the little Boston walled garden uses it, unless you know otherwise.  Er no. I see eight. A couple is two.  There was no actual consensus to do it this way, just a small group of editors acting against a well-established project consensus.  That's a really silly and unhelpful thing to do unless you have good reason, which I haven't seen. Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" may be worth a read. Anyway, I'll look forward to reading your reasons to keep ALLCAPS on articles about trains in Boston at the discussion. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good thing I don't care if i impress you, then. You are not the mighty pronouncer of consensus.
 * All guidelines make general exceptions for charts, tables, and other unusual formatting. :::::Again, I don't think your opinion is all that important and certainly not one I have to defer to.
 * "Established practice" referring to making the top of the infobox mimic station signage. You know, the entire reason for using all-caps. MBTA stations may be the only ones currently using all-caps, but they are far from the only articles following the convention.
 * Would "handful" have been more to your liking?
 * Dozens of editors across hundreds of article over a period of years (at least half a decade) is not "a small group of editors". A handful of editors on an out-of-the-way talk page is.
 * I grow very weary of editors, the same half-dozen names time and again, I might note, who have never lifted a finger on a well-sourced, very through article barging in and acting like they are some super-enlightened being here to save the article from the horrors of not fitting their ideal of styling. Arrogant shit like that is what drives editors away. If (the genetic) you've never made an edit to a page before, what makes you think the unusual styling hasn't been discussed and agreed upon? Maybe humbling yourself enough to ask on the talk page of the actual article is the far more collaborative tact, instead of acting like a know-it-all.
 * Oh, and WP:BRD, which is very widely respected, is not BRRRRRRD. oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, your battleground behavior here is alarming. After being reverted by multiple editors, you started a noticeboard discussion in a location where you assumed we would not see. You then failed to notify any of us, and failed to notify the WikiProjects that the articles are under. Now you leave this aggressive accusation of edit warring over a single revert, with the message "You lost. Get over it." You need to stop treating this as a win/loss scenario and actually work with other editors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think your opinion is all that important and certainly not one I have to defer to. Hmm. Says it all really. If (the genetic) That doesn't mean anything. where you assumed we would not see Ah, a telepath. It's true what they say about railfans. Get over it boys, you lost. --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

USL Start
Stop saying the USL started in 2011--it didn't. The organization began in 1986. The outdoor seasons started in 1989. Through name changes and mergers we get to where we are today. The NAME of the league became USL in 2011, but the league didn't start in 2011 as most of the 2010 league teams were still there in 2011. The name change was made as USL First Division and USL Second Division merged after the 2010 season to make the USL.Dsides12 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what we're saying when we talk about the 2011 date. There's two entities here. There's the parent organization which was formed in 1986, originally known as the United Systems of Independent Soccer Leagues (USISL), which later shortened its name to United Soccer Leagues (note the plural). Meanwhile, there's the actual league, now called USL Championship, which formed in 2011 as USL Pro as a reorganization/merger of the former USL first and second divisions. The column references the later, as it does for the other clubs that list the 2011 joining date. It's an understandable confusion as both the parent organization and the league used the USL name for a few years, but they're not the same and the two dates, 1986 and 2011, refer to the parent and the league respectively. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Concerning GE's merger of NBC & VUE...
OK, so, everyone knows that, in 2003/4, upon acquiring an 80% stake in Vivendi Universal Entertainment LLP from Vivendi Universal SA, General Electric Co., the parent company of National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the legal name for National Broadcasting Company a.k.a. the NBC TV network), used that 80% to merge National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (again, basically, NBC's legal name) with Vivendi Universal Entertainment LLP to form what originally was NBC Universal, Inc. (what nowadays is NBCUniversal Media, LLC, a subsidiary of NBCUniversal, LLC, the joint venture formed between General Electric Co. & Comcast Corporation in 2011 that Comcast Corporation would eventually acquire full ownership/control of in 2013).

Now, how is that explanation any different than/from what the two Encylcopedia Britannica articles I referenced state? And, if you're still believing what you say, then where's your evidence/proof that NBC's legal name remains National Broadcasting Company, Inc. after the NBC-VUE merger (as in that the NBC-VUE merger didn't replace National Broadcasting Company, Inc. with NBC Universal, Inc. initially)?

In fact, I'll make you a deal: if you can put forth evidence/proof that NBC's legal name is still National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (that the NBC-VUE merger didn't replace it with NBCUniversal, Inc., a.k.a. your stance/belief), then you can put that in the article & I will promise not to change/edit it for as long as I live. However, if you can't find proof of what you're saying, then the information I put in the article goes back in & you promise not to change/edit it for as long as you live.

I await your response. 2600:1700:C960:2270:A1A1:3D79:5AD3:302F (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the ref I added, it states what you say. I was indeed wrong, but needed a better ref to convince myself, so when I found it I added it to the article. That said, I don't think the sentence on legal names is needed, as it is relatively trivial and overly wordy. I think the current wording, which focuses on the network (which is still named NBC, not NBC Universal) as is the topic of the article, is the better choice. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, first of all, I checked the ref you added, and it stated that the session had expired. However, I did my own search for "national broadcasting company inc." on the website you referenced, and it came up with two entries: one for "National Broadcasting Company, Inc.", launched in 1926 & terminated as inactive in 1987; & one for "National Broadcasting Company, Inc.", launched in 1987, then re-incorporated to "NBC Universal, Inc." in 2004, before terminated as inactive in 2011. So, as I figured, my stance on the NBC-VUE merger turned out to be correct.
 * Second, I never stated that the NBC TV network changed names (it has remained as "National Broadcasting Company/NBC" since that entity's formation/launch in 1926); what I stated was that the network's legal name went from "National Broadcasting Company, Inc." to "NBC Universal, Inc." when the NBC-VUE merger happened in 2003/4, which is what the website you referenced proved me correct in stating. So, if anything, my stance has been correct all along.
 * However, something that still has me puzzled is how the article for NBCUniversal (operated by NBCUniversal Media; a.k.a. NBC's post-merger legal name) references the entity as a multinational media conglomerate, when, in reality, it should reference the entity as a TV broadcast network (which is what it is). In fact, the infobox even displays NBCUniversal Media's trading name as NBCUniversal, which, according to the documents I've come across, is incorrect. The trading name for NBCUniversal Media should be National Broadcasting Company (more or less confirming that the NBC TV network's legal name is NBCUniversal Media).
 * So, I'd like to get your take/opinion on the incorrect information being displayed for NBCUniversal & how to rectify the situation. 2600:1700:C960:2270:30DE:AAD9:E5F:5463 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, again, the NBC article is about the English language TV network, which is just one part of the company's Broadcast Television segment, which also includes Telemundo, the TV studio operations, and owner and operated local tv stations of those networks. Other operating units are Filmed Entertainment (Universal Pictures and other banners), Theme Park (Universal Studios Resorts in California, Florida, and Japan) and Cable Networks business (including CNBC, national and regional sports networks, USA Network, E! and others). This is easily seen at the company's official website, and in Comcast's annual financial report. NBCUniversal is far more than just the TV network, and to say it's just a TV network is plain wrong. So that's why you're on the wrong track; there's a difference between the TV network operations, which are branded as NBC, and NBCUniversal as a whole. PS, those dates in the New York State filling represent changes in ownership, with the 1987 date being the result of GE's purchase of NBC, the 2004 renaming being the result of the NBC–Universal merger, and the 2011 date being the result of GE buying out Vivendi then flipping a half stake to Comcast (which then bought GE out of the other half in 2014). oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, according to the corporation entries I told you about that I came across on the website for the New York State Department of State Division of Corporations (like the one you tried linking to, where I said that, when I accessed it, it gave a session expired message), it shows "National Broadcasting Company, Inc." (legal name for the NBC TV network) having been replaced by "NBC Universal, Inc." (a result of General Electric Co.'s merger of National Broadcasting Company, Inc. with Vivendi Universal Entertainment LLP). Then, after doing more searching, that same website then shows entries indicating "NBC Universal, Inc." (more or less the NBC TV network's legal name post-NBC-VUE merger) being replaced by "NBCUniversal Media, LLC" (what General Electric & Comcast Corporation re-incorporated NBC Universal, Inc. to).
 * So, going according to what I know about the NBCUniversal entity, as well as the timeline of events of the company and what the entries I've come across say, that would mean that, while the trading name (a.k.a. the brand the public knows the TV network as; in this case) of the TV network has stayed as "National Broadcasting Company/NBC" since it's launch in 1926, the TV network's legal name (what would end with ", Inc.", "Corporation", "Co.", "LLC", or such) has gone from being "National Broadcasting Company, Inc." to being "NBC Universal, Inc." to being "NBCUniversal Media, LLC".
 * So, the point I'm making is that, when General Electric Co. merged National Broadcasting Company, Inc. with Vivendi Universal Entertainment LLP in 2004, the NBC TV network's legal name went from being "National Broadcasting Company, Inc." to being "NBC Universal, Inc.". Then, when the situation between GE & Comcast played out, "NBC Universal, Inc." was then re-incorporated to "NBCUniversal Media, LLC".
 * So, in conclusion, what I've been saying is that the entity currently known legally as "NBCUniversal Media, LLC" has, as its trading name (the brand the public would know the TV network as), "National Broadcasting Company/NBC", not "NBCUniversal". What GE merged Vivendi Universal Entertainment with in 2004 was, more or less, the NBC TV network, as it was "National Broadcasting Company, Inc." (the NBC TV network's legal name) that was merged with Vivendi Universal Entertainment, LLP in 2004.
 * So, when you said "NBCUniversal is far more than just the TV network & to say it's just a TV network is wrong", you were, in fact, on the wrong track, as the current "NBCUniversal Media, LLC" is indeed the legal name for the NBC TV network, as I just explained in the previous two or so paragraphs. So, NBCUniversal would not be the trading name for "NBCUniversal Media, LLC"; its trading name would be the current brand for the TV network. That also means that "NBCUniversal Media, LLC" is not a multinational media conglomerate; it is a TV network, one which, at this point, owns multiple cable networks, a major film studio, amusement parks, & more. If you wish, I can even do a copy & paste of the entries I came across on the website you mentioned that will show that the company originally operating as "National Broadcasting Company, Inc." is indeed operating now as "NBCUniversal Media, LLC". 2600:1700:C960:2270:30DE:AAD9:E5F:5463 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that, while, yes, the legal name has changed, there's more than just the TV network under that name. Equating he two wholly is unneeded trivia, and probably confusing for readers, as the network is not the entirety of the company. So we really do not need to include it in the article. oknazevad (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I can tell you're not really completely understanding this, regardless of what you're saying.
 * Now, I'd glad that you're now willing to acknowledge the point I had been trying to make in the article that what originally started out as "National Broadcasting Company, Inc." (the NBC TV network's legal name) has now become "NBCUniversal Media, LLC".
 * Now, what you don't seem to understand is that what that means is that the entity legally known as "NBCUniversal Media, LLC" is publicly known as the "National Broadcasting Company/NBC" TV network. What that means is that everything under the "NBCUniversal" banner (such as Universal Pictures, Universal Parks & Resorts, & NBCUniversal Cable), technically, is owned by the TV network, as "NBCUniversal Media, LLC" is the legal name of the NBC TV network. If anything, with the NBC-VUE merger, the TV network became the main property of NBC Universal (as it was the network's operating side, National Broadcasting Company, Inc., that was merged with Vivendi Universal Entertainment), with everything else being a division/subsidiary of the TV network. So, while technically, yes, there is more than just the NBC TV network under the NBC Universal name, for the most part, the NBC TV network, legally, is the NBCUniversal name.
 * Another thought I had cross my mind is, as far as what I've stated above, it now becomes confusing for me, as far as Wikipedia having an article for NBC & an article for NBC Universal. More or less, the situation that creates is that Wikipedia, technically, has two articles for the same entity: NBC for the public-facing part of the company & NBCUniversal for the corporate part of the company. According to everything I've come across, NBC & NBCUniversal are the same entity; NBCUniversal Media, LLC's trading name is not NBCUniversal, but rather NBC. In fact, I'll even do a copy & paste of the dates for the legal names:

So, going according to those entries on the NYS Department of State Division of Corporations website, what's currently legally known as NBCUniversal Media, LLC currently operates publicly-facing as the National Broadcasting Company/NBC TV network. So, as I've been stating all along, your comments about NBC not being the entirety of NBCUniversal have now been patently proven wrong. It turns out, NBC is NBCUniversal; NBC is the public-facing portion of the company, while NBCUniversal Media (a.k.a. NBCUniversal) is the corporate side of the company. And that is why I stated the above that Wikipedia having two articles for the same entity (NBC for the public-facing operations & NBCUniversal for the corporate side) is confusing.

So, in conclusion: National Broadcasting Company/NBC is NBCUniversal Media (a.k.a. NBCUniversal); NBCUniversal Media (a.k.a. NBCUniversal is National Broadcasting Company/NBC. National Broadcasting Company/NBC is the public-facing side, whereas NBCUniversal Media (a.k.a. NBCUniversal) is the corporate side. So, while all your ranting about NBCUniversal having more under it than just NBC, in a way, is correct (it has cable channels, amusement parks, film studios, etc.), your ranting about NBC not being the entirety of NBCUniversal is just patently, technically, & now even proven legally, incorrect. 2600:1700:C960:2270:9DC3:2E91:BB0C:839F (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that completely ignores Universal Studios, Telemundo, and all other properties of the company. No, Wikipedia does not have two articles on the same entity, it has an article on the television network, which is one property of the company NBCUniversal. Legal reincorporation with changes of ownership does not make them the same. In other words, don't necessarily confuse the operation with the corporation. oknazevad (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

MiLB league count
I count only 18 leagues at, including the Mexican League. How do you account for 19? NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I miscounted. And misunderstood the bit about "affiliated", which is why I removed the word. I'll fix it. oknazevad (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Alignment chart meme
Do you think that this is worth including in the article? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot source shows it's notable and relevant. I'd say yes, as an example of the game mechanic having an impact outside the game. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

WWE Championship
Hi, I never edited to make it appear that DiBiase was a former champion as I put him in the unrecognized reigns like Inoki. I'm glad you at least left my adding of the Backlund-Valentine and Triple H-Jericho controversies, or when the title was originally vacated after Punk left in July 2011.

I think DiBiase is still worth putting as one of the few unrecognized reigns for the simple reason he actually defended the title at least once. It was not like The Undertaker-Rob Van Dam thing in which the match was actually restarted and which is why that is only worth putting in the notes. He not only was actually announced as the champion and not just for a day, but at least until the Supestars of Wrestling episode of February 13, 1988 (whose matches were taped on January 26, 1988), when he still wore the title belt and when it aired the promo in which Tunney declared the title vacant and announced the WrestleMania IV tournament. I'm not arguing that DiBiase was actually the champion, just that it is worth putting this as an unrecognized reign and also to make clear the title was officially declared vacant only on February 13, 1988. Same thing happened to Seth Rollins.

I also do not think it is necessary to change the days to every single title reign as recognized by WWE, except for the ones which aired later than they actually took place, like The Rock-Mankind or Angle-Lesnar, especially if WWE just randomly adds or subtracts 1 day to so many title reigns. Unless they actually count the exactly hour the title was won (like the title was first won 10 pm on Day A, but then lost at 9 pm Day B, so that is techincally not a full day), I do not know why they do that. They also recognized title reigns like Mankind and The Rock, or Vince McMahon and Triple H or Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle as ending or starting when they actually aired on TV, but do not do the same to the Hulk Hogan-The Undertaker controversy (Hogan's reign officially lasted 4 days since the Superstars of Wrestling episode 5 days after it was taped) or the Randy Savage-Ric Flair situation (as Savage's reign actually lasted 162 days and Flair's 28 days due airing 13 days later). I think we should change only the ones which aired on tape delay or for things like Rollins' vacancy which was one day after the injury (WWE could retroctivately declaring the title vacant on February 5, 1988 or November 4, 2015, but it cannot changed what actually happened) and this should be for every title.

Lastly, Buddy Rogers. I'm glad you kept the April 11 date and the 36 days officially and 22 days as recognized by WWE. Technically, his reign should be as lasting 112 days since he was announced as their world champion the day after the controversy with Lou Thesz, but I think it is fair to keep the date as April 11 and 36 as days since that was the day he was actually presented as WWWF champion and awarded the title belt. However, I think we should put "House show" and "Washington, D.C." since that is what it was on April 11, 1963 and just leave the Rio de Janeiro thing as part of the note, especially since it never actually happened and WWE jokes around it.

Let me know what you think and thank you.--82.63.13.71 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potential National Hockey League expansion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spectrum Center ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Potential_National_Hockey_League_expansion check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Potential_National_Hockey_League_expansion?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't template the regulars. And read WP:LEADCITE, and the actual genres in the critical reception sections. Removing valid, already sourced in the article genres is what is disruptive. oknazevad (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Shot clock
Regarding a new shot clock in men's lacrosse, would you also add information to Shot clock length in other sports, lower in the article? Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. oknazevad (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anaconda & Lake Placid
Template:Anaconda & Lake Placid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Connecticut Transit fleet
Hi Oknazevad, If you want to raise a deletion request for Connecticut Transit fleet, I'm fine with it, but I won't support adding back content that's uncited. If you add it back with citations, I am of course fine with that. Happy to discuss this if you wish. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between poor citation formatting and no citations. The external links are full of references. Deleting the entire contents of an article is just plain unacceptable. That bulldozer approach is nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) PS, removing it again after there was strenuous objection to your method of editing is edit warring and also unacceptable behiavior.
 * If that's the case, then feel free to use them to improve the article and cite them inline. If you had actually read them, you would know that they don't and are vague news stories about bus purchases, without any information on which ones are active, engines, fleet numbers and the like.
 * I'm sorry that you feel that way, but that's not my problem. No, nonsense is re-adding the same years-old unsourced content over and over again without doing the research to make sure that said external links back up the content.
 * PS: I already asked you not to edit war with me, and I've asked to discuss this with you. You went to ANI without wanting to actually discuss it, so I'll cease replying to you here and on my wall so as not to muddy the waters. I ask you to do likewise. Markvs88 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Connecticut Transit fleet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please discuss your concerns at the article talk page or AFD. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Bygones
Hey Oknazevad... I bear you no ill will, and hope you'll accept this gesture in the spirit that it is intended. I'm happy to put this behind us if you are. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Prost! oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

M2 (railcar)
Okay, that's reasonable. Meet me on the talk:M2 (railcar) page? Markvs88 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

NJ Transit lines templates
You seem to be missing the entire point of templates, namely Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. And as far as "Doing that makes the v-t-e links useless": if you don't know how to get there from here, then you have no business messing about with RDTs in the first place. (Hint: try clicking (edit) beside the name of the transcluded template(s), down at the bottom of the page below the edit window, where it says Templates used in this page.) The whole point of using sub-templates in route diagrams is to keep things synchronized, and they've been working just fine elsewhere. Also, don't go blaming me for errors that were already there (especially ones that you've missed; e.g. you made the M&E correction on Main Line (NJ Transit) but missed it on Bergen County Line, whereas editing NJ Transit former alignment-Hoboken Terminal fixed both in one shot!). Useddenim (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thinking on it after a good night's sleep I may have been too hasty. It does make someone looking to make edits run around a bit, but the convenience of having repeated info in one place does have benefits. Accept my apology and feel free to revert.
 * Though please include the fixes of the erroneous names. The NJT years in Suffern is not Hillburn yard, that's the adjacent NS freight yard. The connection between the M&E and Main Line is West End Junction, not the Waterfront connection, which is the track that leads from the northbound NEC to the eastbound M&E as the counterpart to the Kearny Connection that allows for Midtown Direct trains. And West End (so named because it's at the west end of the Bergen Tunnels) is just east of the former junction of the lower Boonton Line with the Main Line. Those errors were the other reasons behind my edits. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NP; we all do silly things when “editing while tired”. I think I caught everything, but please recheck when you have the chance. Useddenim (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I do wonder if we could somehow make Secaucus Junction perpendicular, though, as not only are the tracks really as perpendicular as can be, but also it would allow for the former alignment to be kept more separate and clearer. The junction point between the former alignment (which continued to be used by BCL and PVL trains after the Main Line was realigned onto the original Boonton Line alignment back in the 50s) and the current Main Line was just east enough of Secaucus Junction station to warrant a separate line, I think. oknazevad (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Newark Liberty International Airport article
You recently reverted some edits I made to the Newark Airport page (mostly in the Terminals section), citing that they were "wordier without real benefit" and references were cited incorrectly. I do believe that splitting the terminals section by terminal makes the section more organized and easier to read: it's common practice on many other airport pages, and as it is the section jumps back and forth when talking about the terminals and includes several general facts about all the terminals in the middle or end of the section when they should be in the beginning of the section.

I'll concede that my citations were incorrectly formatted (fairly new to Wikipedia) and some additions may be unnecessary (specifically gate numbers), but I'll fix those things and I think as a whole I think using my edits with modifications makes the section more useful to readers. What do you think? Wanted to post here rather than starting an edit war. I'd appreciate if you can point out some other style errors I made, I'll be glad to fix them. StuckInThought (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, much of the extra character count comes from two small sections I added, one about Terminal One Redevelopment and the other about Munich Airport operating Terminal A/Terminal One. I do believe both of these sections are relevant to the airport's operations and therefore belong on the page. StuckInThought (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The new material on the redevelopment of Terminal A is a good addition, but I don't really see much benefit in splitting up the section that much. It became a bit too sprawling and choppy at that point. As for the formatting errors, the big thing is that references go after the closing punctuation of a sentence or clause, not before them. Please see WP:REFPUNCT for more detail. Welcome aboard and happy editing! oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Leather processing
Reference added on "Leather processing" was not a spam. If the text is poorly written then please suggest one. Please approve it. Subimal 22 (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still not appropriate material per WP:NOTHOWTO. oknazevad (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

But leathersoft is a good reference for assistance towards leather production & it's dedicated to leather industry only. Kindly suggest how can we incorporate it. Subimal 22 (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Los Angeles
The "city" is pointless as it mentions the word city just before. A recent discussion determined that the most common name is "New York".  IWI  ( chat ) 14:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)