User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 21

Darksaber
Don't mean to interrupt anything. You have anything to help me out over at the Mandalorian talk page for the Darksaber? It's impossible to talk sense into these guys. Any help would be appreciated. -- Bold  Clone  19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the discussion. Until someone edits to remove the naming of the Darksaber from the article itself, it's all just a bunch of pointless bickering. They can crow all they want, they haven't come up with anything that justifies its removal and are just making noise at this point. oknazevad (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandalorian comments
Your comment here was uncalled for. Please keep our civility guidelines in mind while editing. I know you are frustrated that the rest of us are focusing on policy and not what you want in the article, but that isn't a good reason to be rude. Be better than that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is policy too. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that is extremely frustrating, and it's frankly rude and obnoxious to imply that those who are invoking it are somehow not following policy, as you've done even here. I feel no bees to treat those who are uncivil in that fashion with a civility that they are unwilling to extend to others. Especially when the edits being called out strain AGF like the one at the lightsaber article which you made despite being fully aware from the series talk page discussion that it's hardly only one source that are identifying the Darksaber.
 * And that's the bottom line. When it's every single secondary source we have explicitly identifying it, for us not to because of an overstrict (and in some places outright incorrect) interpretation of policy plainly shows that policy is getting in the way of improving the article. Exactly why IAR is itself policy. And I don't need to state which rules are being ignored. The whole point of "all rules" is that regardless of which rule is getting in the way, it's being ignored, becaus sits in the way. oknazevad (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, sir. This is the bottom line: your edits here and elsewhere are inconsiderate and rude. Your excuse that you're "frustrated" isn't even an adequate excuse. You and others disagree about policy and guidelines, and your unwillingness to remain civil about it would have a pretty ugly stopping point. Please rein in your frustration and be more civil, or take a break to cool down. You will absolutely not like the third option. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, who was the one who already got the page locked with a warning? Don't threaten me. I've been here a lot longer than you and have a clean block log for a reason. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The page was locked because of the back and forth of multiple editors. And brother, it is precisely because of my block log (and subsequent epiphany) that allows me let you know that the mistakes you are making now are going to pile up and come crashing down on you, man. I am not threatening you. I know the way you are acting because I have been there myself. Its a fake result you are getting, and you are doing yourself a disservice to point to your block log as indicative of you being decent and civil. Please remain calm and use all that superior experience of yours to take a longer view of disagreements in article discussions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by the removal or mischaracterization of reliably sourced material, which is vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sydney trains
Sorry I just created an account, I didn't know how to use this. If Sydney trains are considered commuter rail, than Sydney metro should be too. The Sydney metro runs along the North Suburbs and not even near the CBD. Sydney is a very spread city that has many regions such as Penrith, Cambelltown, Parramatta, Manly, Narabeen, Illawarra, Cronulla, North Sydney, North east sydney, and Sydney (Sydney is a region of the greater metropolitan city of Sydney). The reason most of these trains are above ground is because there is so much space that there is no need to elevate train lines or dig tunnels. They are all Rapid transit systems. It can get very confusing. Sydney metro is a brand name used for the self driving antonymous trains that are only one deck high. Routs like the city circle are NOT metro and are operated by Sydney Trains, and they are Rapid transit. Trains to places like Wollongong and Katoomba are different because these places are NOT part of Sydney. Some trains are Labelled the "INTERCITY FLEET" but they do not necessarily travel to other cities, THey just travel long distances to regions such as Penrith. The INTERCITY trains do travel to other cities but just because they are labelled intercity does not mean that they travel to other places. It is so complicated and I understand why you only included Sydney metro, But again, it doesnt anctually go anywhere near the CBD, At least not until 2024 when an extension is opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sydney Metro is not just branding, but reflects that it's fully grade separated and follows a headway (is, time between trains) not timetable operation, and other aspects. Please read the criteria at the list of metro systems article, and under stand that "rapid transit" is a particular class of passenger trains distinguished from other types by technical criteria. I do understand that Sydney trains have historically been akin to S-Bahns in operation because the city (however one wants to define it, being there's no real equivalent to the Greater London Authority, Tokyo Metropolitan Government of other similar overarching government for the conurbation) has never really had a true metro line before, but they still don't constitute a metro system (note we don't include German S-Bahns, either). And just because the new line hasn't reached the CBD yet doesmt make it any less metro in standards. Most importantly, though, is this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here, so many editors can discuss this. We're more likely to find a consensus that way. I will say this, though: welcome aboard! oknazevad (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I figured out how to talk on the article and have written a response, thanks for the warm welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please remove your comment
Revert your comment immediately. In case you forgot, you promised to not post in the related pages, and you have done so less than 5 days after promising not to. If the are not removed within the hour, I will seek your immediate block for violating your agreement. This will serve as your only warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I said I would not edit the article. I never said I would not edit the talk page. But frankly your threat here isn't worth the headache. I'll remove it. I will also plainly state you are to never edit my talk page again, and any such edits will be seen as harassment. oknazevad (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Exandria
And now you know why I was trying to add Exandria. You’re welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.240.151 (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You were trying to add it prematurely. Unless you have some inside info, making you the primary source of the info, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, really? That would mean a celebrity couldn’t alter their own Wikipedia page because they are the primary source of data. Wikipedia is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.240.151 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, really. Conflicts of interest and maintaining a neutral point of view are hard to keep up with if a person can write their own article. oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Canadian whisky
I have opened a section on the talk page regarding creating a criteria for listing distilleries on that Canadian whisky list Talk:Canadian whisky. While the list currently doesn't have an inclusion criteria beyond the WP defaults of verifiability, you have twice removed the Wayne Gretzky Distillery, so you seem to be enforcing a criteria that is unknown to me. It would help if you wrote for us what your criteria is so we can edit the article accordingly. Thanks.

Also, I must express some frustration with your editing on that article, specifically regarding your edit here and its edit summary, you simply removed referenced content relevant to the topic. That is not "improvements". Since I started watchlisting and editing this article, taking it from this to this, these have been your edits:
 * adding a 2-sentence subsection on smuggling referenced to a hotel's website,
 * reverting the sentence on 'what Canadian whiskies are' back to 'what they used to be',
 * reverting back to that same passage over top a more elaborate description,
 * removing the descriptor "caramel" and replacing "subsidiary" with "has a controlling share",
 * removing rum as an example since it is not always white,
 * removing triticale as an example grain and deleting a hidden text note to editors, and
 * removing one of the distillery's former names. These edits are just removals of relevant information or reverts to previous, less informed versions. These are edits, yes, but not improvements. I would like to further build up the article but it is frustrating and discouraging when another editor keeps picking out relevant contextual pieces or reverting to the original version. maclean (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have responded at the talk page regarding the Gretzky brand, but I'll also explain further these edits here.


 * The removal of the smuggling section is plainly a poor choice. Canadian whisky's prominence in its largest consumer market is in large part because of smuggling during prohibition, so to not mention that at all is simply inconceivable. Could the source be better, sure, but don't remove that important historical fact.
 * The second is about context. The passage is about the historical origin of using the word "rye" as a synonym for Canadian whisky, not how they're made today.
 * Again, it's about flow. Answering the question as to why Canadian whisky is commonly called "rye whisky" even when there's little rye in the actual manufacturing is important and should be covered early.
 * "Caramel color is a specific food additive and does not come from barrel aging. And a "subsidiary" is by definition majority (if not wholly) owned by the parent company; Pernod's stake in Corby is about 48%, the largest share and enough to effective control the company, but not a majority. Both these changes were made because they were technical error corrections.
 * Rum isn't always white, that's just a fact. In fact it comes in many different barrel aging points. And it's popular in different ways at those different points. It's just a really poor choice to use as an example there.
 * I've never actually seen triticale in Canadian whisky. Perhaps it is used by a small producer on a near-experimental level, but it's rare. Then again, the same could be said for triticale as a whole. It's just not a common grain in any use. Therefor, listing it sticks out like a sore thumb, and it's removal doesn't impact the overall meaning of the sentence. The hidden note was confusing, contradictory to the visible text, and contradicted by the actual reference to the sentence (I checked my physical copy of the book).
 * Frankly I think we should ditch all the former names except maybe Schenley for Valleyfield (because it's still commonly known as that as the Schenley name is still on the building, but I can see leaving them all in, too. That said, they need to be sourced, and an incomplete list is pointless. I think I specifically took out the old name for the Black Velvet Distillery because it was an incomplete list of former names; it was at one point officially called the "Lethbridge Distillery", which is unmentioned at all, so I didn't see the point of including any old names. oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Red Bull Brasil logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Red Bull Brasil logo.gif. 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) 18:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

ABC
Fifth revert in 24 hours. Would you like to self-revert? 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting serial sock puppetry is a valid exemption from WP:3RR. Or are you now claiming that you didn't admit to sock puppetry here? oknazevad (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. I missed this edit which I am happy with. As such, I reverted you. I then spotted the same thing twice and self-reverted OWN edit which was DUPLICATE. I hope that makes it clear to you. Also, your summary mentions nothing of alleged sockpuppetry but merely pushes your own viewpoint. So, now that is clarified, would you like to self-revert and continue on talk? 81.137.62.113 (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Only if the material is left out while the discussion is ongoing, per WP:BRD. The material was added boldly, and once reverted it should not be re-added without discussion, especially since it was challenged as unsourced. oknazevad (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All right I think you're missing a point. You seem to be attuned to Wikipedia's policies and so I will make this simple. Right now, you stand in breach of WP:3RR which you are defending on the assumption of my account and one other being operated by the same person. If you are correct, then you are not in breach, but if you are wrong, then you are eligible for sanctioning. Self-reverting is not damaging, and after all, if you are correct in your "doubts" then there are recent changes patrollers who will immediately review and pick up on the mistake thus restoring your "original" version. Likewise the article is accessible around the clock and just about anyone can say, "hey this isn't sourced, I'm removing it", or "I will place a citation tag here". So for the last time, choice is yours, do you wish to self-revert? 81.137.62.113 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You know, I knew there was something about this that smelled fishy. Then it hit me. You're already banned from posting here, and failure to abide by that is harassment. Plus looking at your edit history where you've never even looked at the article before and the fact that your IP just got off a one year block for socking and intentionally disruptive editing makes me fully convinced you're full of shit and this is clearly a pathetic attempt at hounding me in an effort to get revenge for my part in your block. Don't post here again. And don't re-add the material to the article or you will find that IP again blocked for a year or more. oknazevad (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to help, I opened this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Lapel
Hi Oknazevad!

Thank you for your kind edit. It might seem obvious for some contributors, but most Wikipedians simply revert good faith edits with unpleasant or unnecessary and sometimes aggressive comments. With you, that is most certainly not the case, it seems like at least you acknowledge my effort. I have taken the liberty to at least restore this phrase, as I really think it is very relevant and does not go into excessive detail: A notch-less lapel jacket is called a Teba.

Regarding the other detailed analysis of types of notched lapels, I suppose maybe we could explore the possibility of adding it elsewhere, in some other section or even a new section!

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback!

--Cantabrucu (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lightsaber edits, again
I would ask that you refrain from making edits like this in the Lightsaber article. The reason we have had to address this before is that you are utilizing a consensus that has not yet emerged or taken a final form, and bears all the earmarks of seeking an end-run around The Mandalorian article's (non)use of the Darksaber. As well, you have made pledges to abstain from (what you are certainly aware are) controversial edits in Star Wars-related articles for a few months, upon pain of block. I am not going to revisit the reasons for your recent block, but I think you understand that you cannot seem to edit there without civility issues. Please avoid them and stay away from these articles for a little while. Trust that there are many other editors who will endeavor to keep the articles even and representative of not only consensus, but of sources and our rules. I know that you don't consider me fair, but understand that once a lasting consensus emerges in Mandalorian, I will certainly not interfere with the implementation fo that consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reopened discussion on the article talk page. Address my concerns there. There is nothing truly controversial about simplifying wording and adding verifying sources unless you make it so.
 * Also, please stop assuming bad faith here or in any related discussion. I do not see or intend any "end run", and truly do not appreciate your assumption of bad faith on my part. Between that and the slippery slope fallacy, I don't think this is an area you can edit in objectively, to be honest. Your own comments at Talk:The Mandalorian regarding Star Wars fans would easily earn you a topic ban, I would think. I'd advise you to edit in other areas before such a ban is required. oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, Oknazevad; I probably won't be editing any articles about Star Wars (or Star Trek) fans at any point. Disliking the zealotry with which these fans approach "their" franchise is what I object to, not the franchise itself. Maybe it is a slim distinction for some to make; to me, the difference is enormous.
 * I have responded to your points in the Lightsaer article discussion; you make several good points; the (perhaps frustrating) main point is, when reverted, reverting again is the wrong step. Heading to discussion allows for collaborative editing to find the best common ground within our framework, which means more stable articles. It took you a beat to realize that, and I appreciate your growth in that way. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Benji Dunn
You made a good point for his notability here, which is why this article is not at AfD. But until such an expansion is done, it doesn't show notability clearly, hence the notability tag should be there, to motivate someone - you, or another editor - to address it by expanding this. I hope you can see a difference between a deletion proposal and a tag indicating existence of a surmountable issue. Would you mind restoring that tag, which should remain there until the article is expanded to address the issue it describes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned with that tag's in this case. That tag is really meant as much to indicate that the article doesn't demonstrate notability at all, not that it needs improvement. I wish there were a tag calling for more sources to demonstrate notability, as opposed to the tag that essentially states there is none present at all, like the difference between the undefined and undefined tags. As it is, the in-universe tag is a good tag. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hartford Line
Amtrak owns the physical corridor, but they lost the bid for the operations contract, and so the Hartford Line is not run by Amtrak. I interviewed the head of agency by phone. Theblindsage (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're confusing the commuter line with Amtrak's service (which used to be called the Shuttle). Amtrak still operates the latter. oknazevad (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the Hartford line, right? I talked to Richard Jankovich, Asistant Rail Administrator, CDOT. Amtrak owns the physical track, but it is "operated by a service provider—a joint venture of TransitAmerica Services and Alternate Concepts (TASI/ACI"

 Theblindsage (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the commuter service is operated by a third-party provider. But there's still the Amtrak service operated by Amtrak. Hartford Line and Hartford Line (Amtrak) (formerly Shuttle) are not the same service. oknazevad (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Traveller changes
In re: this diff: Interesting. I had the opposite sense of the reverted edit. Your edit summary text lead me to that conclusion. I am not sure how we’d avoid that confusion next time. Happy editing. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's an underlying assumption that less text equals less details, but that's not always true. Especially when the text that was removed was what provided the actual useful context for the details that do remain. Articles, especially ones on fairly obscure subjects, need that context or they are poor introductions of material to the unfamiliar reader. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Go Transit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit.  Cards   84664   00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

2017 Los Angeles Measure S
Any specific examples in the text you'd like addressed? Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly the layout. Pull quotes are not an encyclopedic item. Some of the images are purely decorative. And some of the headers are more poetically evocative than needed. As I said in my edit summary, it reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia one. It tries to paint a picture more that report facts in telling the story. I get its importance; it's a strong rejection of the giant suburb model that has dominated post-WWII LA, but this is still a reference work for facts. oknazevad (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you on this. You're mistaken in calling those "pull quotes"—per the article, those have text already in the body. Those quotes are more epigraphs as they're not in the text; they sort of set up what comes beneath them. I suppose you could argue that some of those images are decorative ... however, without them the article would have long wall o' text stretches that are hard on readers' eyes, whether on a screen or on paper. Breaking that flow up with images or something on the side (or for that matter in the middle like blockquotes or epigraphs) makes it more likely that readers will continue to the end of the text. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether you call them pull quotes or epigraphs, they still are too magazine-like, and not an encyclopedia style. Images are fine, but too many of them that don't specifically illustrate nearby text aren't all that helpful. oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Broadway
Hi, Well, just to let you know all the information from the Theater District article was incorporated into the Broadway (street) article. I do not really agree that "the street is far longer than the district, and the specifics of the theatres as a group are not enhanced by being lost among the non-theatre buildings.", because - although the street is quite long, there is very little of interest south of Olympic or north of the 101, so it is very close to the geographical definition of the Theatre District (3rd to Olympic, taking the UA/ACE into account), really only 3 blocks from 3rd north to the 101 are relevant, plus Chinatown. - the Theatre District geographically incorporates many historic office and retail buildings, including what was once the largest concentration of department stores in the U.S. - in short, it is extremely forced to try to separate the relevant information about Broadway, and the relevant information about the Theatre District from 3rd to Olympic. - many articles combine a historic district and a description of the street, when these significantly overlap - the content is now 100% repetitive.Keizers (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that Broadway, the street, is not just the part in the theater district. To conflate the two does a disservice to the distinctive district and to the rest of the major north–south thoroughfare. Additionally, the district is named for and defined because of the theatres, not the other buildings. Without a separate article that key fact is lost.
 * Also, I would say that regardless of that, any merger of that size and scope should have been discussed. oknazevad (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on R179 (New York City Subway car); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.''Brass tacks: First, me and multiple other editors agreed to not use youtube as a source because we DO NOT USE YOUTUBE AS A SOURCE, and we also agreed to keep the header the way it was until a more suitable source would be found, if you even bothered to read the talk page on it.
 * 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.

Secondaly, you are continuing to cause an edit war instead of speaking with the original editors who came to this conclusion in the first place on the talk page, PERIOD. I have set up a new section, so please, discuss with us on the talk page and we will go from there. FlushingLocal (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the talk page. I responded on the talk page. The conclusion was erroneous and not in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines on sourcing. Have you even read a word of what I wrote rebutting the erroneous conclusion that only you keep edit warring to maintain? oknazevad (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Really? So 4 or 5 editors came to an "erroneous" conclusion? You are the only one that continues to keep this argument going, stop already. Even MTATTrain changed it to be "most, if not all". What's the issue with leaving it like that?? FlushingLocal (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A)Yes. They misunderstood the sourcing policy. B) You've been the only one editing against the change, while a half-dozen other editors have removed the unneeded "if not" repeatedly. C) MTATrain stated plainly in his edit summary that he only used that phrasing because you were being difficult. D) It's incorrect, that's why it needs to be removed. THE R179s are pushing out the R32s. FInally. (and not a day too soon!) oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? Cause that's not what he said and I quote "simplification to appease some people". It is not incorrect, it allows for BOTH of our edits to exist with each other stating that they may retire all of them, or they may retire many of them. This is not "unneeded", it is pure facts. 173.56.127.201 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you now editing logged out? oknazevad (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I switched to desktop, didn't know I wasn't signed in. FlushingLocal (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Please remember to indent. oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Universal
Hi. I see you changed the date to March 26. Can you include a source? The current one doesn't mention anything about the exact date --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted that later after someone pointed out that. My understanding that it was based on something Braun said in an interview about the match actually taking place at around 1:30 am, but that might have been misinterpreted. the Its not currently in the article as far as I know. oknazevad (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I saw the hidden note along with just one date. I will include the two dates, thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ''You have been edit warring at the article R179 (New York City Subway car). You have already made more than 3 reverts and per WP:3RR you are subject to blocking if you do it again. MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)'' MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, lost count. I'm going to the reliable sources noticeboard to get some outside input. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Green Hornet (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kato ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Green_Hornet_%28TV_series%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Green_Hornet_%28TV_series%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

R32s are retired
Hello Oknazevad,

as of April 24, 2020, the R32s are officially retired from revenue service. The MTA has released the official source a few days ago: https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/93116117_242611760125712_5319767005589405696_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=MO2jjGYsdKQAX-TH92X&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=3fe159830d927100fb07a5d07129b94f&oe=5EC88183

Therefore, it is with hope that the R179 edit war will end. So please add this to the R179 page when it gets unprotected tonight.

Davidng913 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While I feel justified in being right (who wouldn't), I am going to refrain from making the edits myself. If anything, would be the best choice as it would make it clear that there is definite consensus. oknazevad (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really, both of use were right and wrong in this case. The only (logical) reason why they were retired is because normal service patterns in the subway arent going to come back for a while due to COVID-19, hence the less need for the R32's. But I will be the one to change the info on the R179 page to show theres a consensus, please wait for me to edit it once it gets unlocked.
 * Sounds reasonable. We should also update the R32 page as well. oknazevad (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited One-cushion carom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balkline ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/One-cushion_carom check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/One-cushion_carom?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether the NYC Subway R149s and the BART D and E series are from the Movia series
Bombardier's official website outright stated New York City and San Francisco about the Movia train ("From London to Delhi, New York to Shanghai, MOVIA metros move more than seven billion passengers every year.", "775 MOVIA metro vehicles to San Francisco, 300 MOVIA metro vehicles to New York") (https://rail.bombardier.com/en/solutions-and-technologies/urban/metro.html). Bringing up your argument ("NYC Subway cars' specs and designs are largely dictated by the MTA, and the R179s have much more in common with the other NTT subway cars than anything else Bombardier has built"), it would be like saying that the the Toronto Rocket and the London Underground 2009 Stock are not Movia designs (even though they are), just because their designs and specs are dictated by the Toronto Transit Commission (i.e. Toronto track gauge) and the London Underground (i.e. low clearance height) respectively, and thus are going to have more in common with their preceding rolling stocks. Obviously when a transit agency orders a fleet of vehicles, they want something that will suit their needs, so they will dictate the design and specs of the vehicle they ordered. Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I want a source from the MTA that supports the claim. That is all. oknazevad (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

z/OS is a closer UNIX system than Linux (in every respect). (Please stop deleting my and other people's z/OS inclusion at UNIX articles/templates/files)
Linux and Minix are included instead of z/OS but their code is less Unix than z/OS because they have no Unix code. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What other people? You're the only one that has added it. And I am not the only one to object, as the addition was immediately questioned on the talk page.
 * No, z/OS is not closer than Linux. It can operate with a compatibility layer at best. It does not have the internet structure of a Unix-like system. Its like Windows running it's compatibility layer. Doesn't make it Unix. And, by the way, BSD hasn't had any Unix code in decades, either. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's "official" Unix, not even Linux or Windows can say that. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User BBCWatcher had also posted in the talk page from the main Unix article (Talk:Unix) and you had also deleted the user's similar edits on the Unix template (Template:Unix). Maybe this issue could merit holding a vote. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Single Unix Specification indicates compatibility/compliance only. It is not definitive as to the Unix-ness of a system. Indeed, that's the main criticism of it, that the tests don't really reflect the internal design structure characteristics of a Unix system (as documented in the classic Dennis Ritchie texts).
 * And again, z/OS can only pass that suite of tests with the implementation of additional compatibility software, not on its own. z/OS can be run like a Unix system, if the admin so desires, but it doesn't need to be. That's the difference. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * UNIX System Services is a required part of the operating system, meaning that it's always Unix. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can not verify that claim in our article, which was added without a source 14 years ago by BBCWatcher. Indeed, in looking at the IBM site in trying to verify it, it becomes clear that IBM themselves consider it a separate thing from Unix, not least because there are native z/OS applications (mostly of the data-management varieties) that do not need to call on the Unix System Services to operate at all. It may be included by default, but it is not required. oknazevad (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case you didn't know, EulerOS is a SUS-certified system that is Linux-based. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a required portion, ok. EulerOS have almost no market share and z/OS is the majority of the mainframe industry; it is closer to the level of AIX/HP-UX etc in terms of both years in age and industry significance. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the point. The point of mentioning EulerOS was to point out that there is a Linux-based system that is certified, which addresses the idea that certification makes z/OS somehow more real Unix than Linux. Market share is irrelevant and, frankly, comes off as moving the goal posts. Yes z/OS is the most significant mainframe OS. But that doesn't make z/OS a Unix system. oknazevad (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No you misunderstood about EulerOS / that's what I meant to say about EulerOS: there are very *many* other OSs which could be included beyond EulerOS on the picture but we have been including *only the most long-standing and famous* (and if someone wants to go through it all and change it that's fine by me :-) ). Altanner1991 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With EulerOS it's also the fact that Linux is already shown and the Single UNIX Specification isn't grounds to mention it twice. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I agree that z/OS should not be included because it is only Unix thanks to its compatibility layer. I appreciate your patience! Also, indeed like Linux, BSD hasn't had Unix code in decades, but with Linux it has never had the Unix code, except during a lawsuit when there had been found some code in Linux taken from a Unix operating system (DYNIX) and which was then removed per copyright laws. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you understand. Just for the record, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of EulerOS, just was pointing out that the SUS is not dependent on historical Unix code. oknazevad (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh Ok I see, that's a great case example and very interesting indeed, thanks. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Or see the talk on the Portland Timbers
This was raised at the Portland Timbers' article and I found the five that did not meet the others. WP:FOOTY should be where the discussion takes place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is standard American English to use plural verbs for teams with plural nicknames, as clearly evidenced by the dozens of other American sports teams, and by the press's use of such. The other MLS articles are incorrect. A couple of years ago I went through them and corrected them, but apparently that was changed by others that do not know that. The issue has previously been addressed in prior discussions at Talk: Major League Soccer; this was already decided a few years ago, and is part of the site-wide manual of style,. which trumps any wikiproject. Of course, it doesn't make it easier to be consistent when so many MLS teams do not have plural nicknames, but that doesn't make the ones that do exempt from standard American English. oknazevad (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care. There was a consensus to change so go ahead and ignore it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WHERE?!? I see no such consensus. There was immediate objection to the supposed WP:CONLIMITED, as it conflicts with the already settled site-wide guidleine. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please
Check the World tag team championships notes then come and undo my edit Abhishek Gandha (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned there either. This has previously been discussed. That Seth held the Universal title and the Raw tag titles (with Braun) at the same time is relevant to him, but not to the history of those titles. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Your recent editing history at French Open 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. wjemather please leave a message... 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

High-speed rail in the United States
You have removed the multiple sources that I placed between the same reference tags, numbering the sources within those tags. You have stated that each separate reference gets its own reference tags. You have therefore edited High-speed rail in the United States to give each reference its own tag

However, you have not cited a WP editing page or a WP policy that supports your removal of my edits. You therefore appear to be replacing the work of other editors with that of your own without providing an adequate justification. Please therefore stop making such edits unless you can identify such a WP editing page or WP policy.

Your edit has decreased the quality of High-speed rail in the United States. Articles that have multiple consecutive reference tags within their text are difficult to read, because the multiple tags interrupt the flow of the article's text and distract readers.

It is therefore preferable to place multiple sources between the same reference tags, numbering the sources within those tags, rather than to place multiple consecutive reference tags within the text. While this procedure does not permit an automatic generation of a number for individual references, the procedure is not only appropriate but is preferable.

In addition, you placed a post regarding this on my Talk page, but did not sign it. This is not a proper WP procedure. Please therefore sign all of your posts. Corker1 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation merging, like any change in citation method, should not be done without consensus. Additionally, your use of line breaks is an accessibility issue and contrary to the instructions. Oknazevad's edits were perfectly reasonable, and I agree that there is no need for citation merging in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not signing. Simple oversight. Also, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. I automatically am notified when someone posts to it.
 * As for the multiple references in one tag, I'd advise you to read over the citation guidelines again. No where does it say that format is acceptable, and indeed it even says plainly to put tags around all references. It's also simply easy to pick any of hundreds of thousands, millions even, of articles and see the proper formatting.
 * It is also not preferable, as having separate tags for each reference makes it clear exactly that there are separate references immediately. It is not an improvement to combine them, and that is why it is not correct according to the guidelines. I'd advise you to review featured articles and good articles to see the proper methods. oknazevad (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oknazevad: The format that I used for my references is a type of "bundling", which Help:Citation merging describes. Therefore, the format that I used is acceptable, although it is uncommon.
 * While the format may be a change in the citation method for High-speed rail in the United States, it does not appear to be a large enough change to require the development of a consensus or to bring it to arbitration if no consensus appears. In this regard, please note that if a consensus or arbitration agrees that the format is acceptable, somebody will need to edit every set of consecutive in-line references in the article to assure that the article has a consistent format. However, if either of you believe that the change does require a consensus, please request this in Talk:High-speed rail in the United States. Corker1 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two editors have already objected to the change. The onus is on you to find consensus to support it, and you haven't presented a remotely compelling case. Bundling those citations prevents their reuse elsewhere in the article, with the miniscule benefit of removing two tiny numbers at the end of a sentence. Bundling citations should only be done when there's a specific case - like when a sentence needs multiple citations to prove a single point, and those citations are unlikely to be reused anywhere in the article - and that's not true here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that WP accepts bundling. However, you stated that the "two citations are unlikely to be reused anywhere in the article - and that's not true here." Please therefore note that I bundled an existing citation together with my own new citation. I only created the bundle after I had ascertained that the existing citation was not used elsewhere in the article.
 * It is therefore unlikely that the existing citation will be reused anywhere else in the article in the future. My own citation is also unlikely to be reused elsewhere in the article, as it supports a specific statement that is not likely to be reused within the article (although some editors may choose to use the citation in other articles).
 * As you stated, bundling citations is most useful when multiple citations are needed to support (not "prove") a single point or to provide further information that supports that point. Bundling is less useful when there are only two citations. However, bundling two citations permits subsequent edits to easily increase the number of citations within the bundle, rather than increasing the number of in-line citations.
 * You stated that "Bundling those citations prevents their reuse elsewhere in the article". That is not correct. The bundle can easily be reused elsewhere as a whole by using  instead of . In the unusual instance where only one citation in the bundle needs to be reused elsewhere, editors can easily copy that citation and paste the citation elsewhere (creating a new bundle if so desired).
 * Regarding consensus: When there are only three editors involved, there is no "onus" on any one of those three editors "to find consensus to support it". It is only necessary for one of the other two editors to acknowledge that additional information on the subject has made the case somewhat more than " remotely compelling". Please therefore state whether you believe that the additional information that I have provided here is sufficient to permit bundling within High-speed rail in the United States. Corker1 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we please take this conversation to the talk page of the article? oknazevad (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gauntlet (1985 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tengen ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gauntlet_%281985_video_game%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gauntlet_%281985_video_game%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits on Major League Lacrosse
You have changed two edits of mine on Major League Lacrosse. I cut down the first edit which you said was overly promotional to get rid of any adjectives, where I just included list of sponsors, which is a black and white list, and a achievements for the league that happened in 2019. Any time someone notes an accomplishment, for anything, it inherently sounds promotional. I simply put statements, which is apart of MLL's history, so how am I supposed to make it not sound promotional? I am not trying to be crude or snarky, I am genuinely asking.

Is it promotional to state who a professional sports league associates with? That is significant in the history the league, which is not a promotional thing, but the point of this Wikipedia page is to detail the history of the league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschwam (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A list of sponsors is not encyclopedia material unless it's commented on by outside sources to establish notability, not just press releases from the league or sponsor repeated on PR news wires. So the sponsors section doesn't work as phrased, let alone listing every sponsor. The viewership portions are also poorly phrased and unsourced. In other words, it still needs work. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia is literally a hub for information, and sponsor influence is littered throughout league content outside of Wikipedia, as it is with any sponsor for any company. Sponsors are large sources of income for companies on a general level, meaning their act of sponsorship is notable in regards to the company.Jschwam (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Look at other league articles. They may mention sponsors in passing, but not a whole section. I think that's too much. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I sourced the exact article where I got the viewership numbers. If I didn't my apologizes and I will make sure I do that. I will also make sure the wording is a little nicer for you, but unless it is grammatically incorrect I don't believe that is enough to warrant taking a section down. I will address this when I repost. Jschwam (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've greatly simplified the non-sponsorship section. I hope that update goes without issue. As for sponsorship, I understand your point, and looked at that before I made edits. However, just because it's not on the WP page of say, Major League Baseball, does that make it wrong? Every WP page for every pro sports league is not exactly the same because the leagues are not the same. Obviously, you hold the cards here to keep removing the change, and I won't add it back unless agreed upon, but I am simply confused as to why it is issue. You never rebutted my claim that an encyclopedia is a hub for information, and based on the points above, make sponsorship notable enough for the leagues WP page. I hope we can agree that every wikipedia page does not have to follow the same structure. I say this not a snarky tone, but deciding a simple, factual list of sponsors for the Major League Lacrosse page seems odd because personal knowledge of the subject matter is irrelevant for creating wikipedia pages.Jschwam (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No it wasn't easier
- 00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. When a passage is added summarizing a linked article, then it's just easiest to use references from that linked article. Ideally the person adding the passage would do that themselves, but if they neglect that, copying those refs is a classic case of WP:SOFIXIT, instead of putting a tag. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell other people what's "easier" for them to do. You don't know my workload, time constraints, etc, nor how I would handle such a situation. And except for an obvious cut-and-paste situation, I wouldn't know that the source actually contains all the information added, and I would have to verify that myself, which would take even more time. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so that means we're supposed to value each other's contributions. So thanks for adding the source, but the snark is unhelpful. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you took it as snark. It wasn't intended as such. I do think that tagging newly added material like that to be a bit bite-y, though, and try to discourage it in favor of finding a simple solution. oknazevad (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)