User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 26

Questions

Hello. Since the IP edits the Impact wrestling titles a lot, I have two questions. One is for the promotion. As you know, we include a green section if the title changes brand or promotion. However, Global Force Wrestling, as far as I know, never controlled the title. The merge never was completed, so I think there is no reason to include green sections for TNA/Impact and GFW.

Second, the bold words. Usually we include bold for present. (name of the title in bold, means it's the current name. Name of the wrestler, means it's the name he uses). However, I have read MOS:BOLD but I found nothing about bold text means current. Do you think we should take it to the project talk page and change hundreds of articles? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For the former, it's all one promotion, though they did attempt to change their name to GFW, it's still the same promotion, so no need to do anything if that sort.

For the bold, it's actually common across sports articles to use boldface to indicate the current item on a list. It's not mentioned in MOS:BOLD, but that isn't comprehensive, so nothing needs to change.

Regardless, nothing those IPs do matters and all of it should be reverted on sight, because it's Jdhfox, who is effectively banned, evading his block. Per WP:DENY, don't even bother with giving him any satisfaction. Just revert and report the IPs to WP:AIV. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. If you don't mind, I'm gonna remove current names from the infobox. I mean, the parameter is past names, no reason to include the current name. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

McAfee

I'm not going to go tit-for-tat on the article, but I would like to address a comment you made.

Everything in wrestling - in one way or another - is "in universe", so complaining about wrestling topics being too "in universe" is like complaining that the sky is too blue.

Vjmlhds 18:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yankees and 1901-02 Orioles

Hi Oknazevad, hope you are well. I just wanted to let you know I added a hidden text message to New York Yankees regarding the 1901-02 Baltimore Orioles. It seems like every reliable source is in agreement that the Orioles team is its separate team. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I tweaked the grammar a bit and posted the Yankees last to really emphasize the point. It is a notable change from the conventional wisdom, but it was a significant correction when it was announced a few years back. It was time for us to catch up. The question is whether the 1901–02 Orioles should have their own article, being it's currently a redirect to the Yankees. oknazevad (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There are definitely enough reliable sources for a 1901-1902 Orioles article, perhaps I'll put it on my to-do list. Thanks again. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be cool. Let me know and I'll take a look at it. oknazevad (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Link via redirect in hatnote

Hi there,

I notice you made this edit saying "Don't use redirect in hatnote s".

I'm wondering if this based on formal policy or consensus I've missed or just a personal preference of your own, and whether it applies specifically to hatnotes?

It's definitely the case that linking via redirect is *preferable* under some circumstances, and while that doesn't necessarily apply here- this case is definitely more marginal- I'm not aware that there's anything against it either...?

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

First item in WP:HATNOTERULES. In body text a redirect is fine, but in a hatnote, especially one meant to make sure people are arriving at the correct article because of potential redirect confusion, using the actual title is preferable. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Ubcule (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war

Heya - I’m Chausettes. You have twice removed an edit I’ve made on the American Bully article. Perhaps you could enter into the talk on the page? It would be good to have a more detailed discussion as I’m not sure your justifications are that clear cut. Thanks :) Chausettes (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

My justification is that no other dog breed article contains a laundry list of barely notable dog-bites-person news articles that have no long term notability WP:NOTNEWS applies. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

1914 & 1915 MLB seasons

I'm not even going to bother reverting you at 1914 Major League Baseball season & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages. Not because I agree with you, but because I'm tired of the inconsistency being pushed there, even though both the American League & the National League 'opposed' the Federal League at the time. Just no longer interested in trying to bring accuracy to Wikipedia & fighting against revisionism. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not "inconsistency" to include officially recognized records. The inaccuracy is in omitting them. oknazevad (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's revisionism & nothing more. But, as I said at WP:BASEBALL. You're the boss, so I'm not going to bother reverting. PS - They certainly won't be the only pages misleading, on this project. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Private label

"Reads too much like an essay or magazine article"

You said something similar in May when I first posted the article. You also called it "choppily", which is nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. The article is well-organized and contains no personal opinions/arguments. Just the facts. A good description of private label was sorely lacking on Wikipedia, and I'm glad to have added it. I worked very hard on the content. For you to just brush it off like that... I find it difficult to take. - Manifestation (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It reads like a magazine article. I think the material you added is good material, but could use a once over to make it less casual in tone. oknazevad (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Have you ever read a magazine article? Like this or this?
Look, I admit that I did take a slight amount of liberty in the definition of private label. Many sources imply or literally state that private label involves outsourcing. This is not true, as evidenced by this article. It's a profile of a vice-president of Kroger, no less, who explains that part of their private-label store brands are made by factories *owned by them*. I also read the 1982 book Private Label, which can be read online for free. Page 10 reads: "The label owner may manufacture his own private label products or have them manufactured and packaged to certain specifications by outside sources, including imports". This made me suspect that outsourcing of private labels used to be less common.
The ambiguity of the definition had probably put the Private label article in a deadlock, preventing its growth. How can you write about private label if you don't know what it is? My main goal was to get the definition clear. For this reason, I also successfully untied private label and generic brand. Nowadays, these two terms are often used interchangeably, but as I made clear in the article, this wasn't always the case.
Keep the {{essay}} template in if you must. But to me, it is hurtful. I worked on this for weeks, almost every day when I got home from work. It took you a lot less time to dismiss it. - Manifestation (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have split generic brand off at all. It's simply another name for store brand. And store brand was already merged into private label following a consensus merge discussion. I think they should be tagged for merger to see what others think. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Did you read the content I posted? Generic brands and store brands are NOT the same! People use the terms incorrectly. If you want to see what generic products look like, google it, or watch this scene from Repo Man (1984). - Manifestation (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Then remove the store brands like Great Value from the see also section. Because if there is a distinction, those are not generic, they're store-specific private label brands. Either a brand is available across many wholly separate retailers, in which case it is a name brand (albeit maybe a lesser known brand), or it's only a available through a single retailer or a set of retailers that all share common ownership, in which case it's a private label brand. That is the only distinction with any substance. Having a stripped-down, no-frills packaging is meaningless, and doesn't change the substance of the important distinction of availability. oknazevad (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Again, did you read the content I posted? Four reliable sources I cited clearly distinguish between *three* types of brands: national, private/store, and generic.
Throughout my research, I could not discover who are behind generic brands; retailers, manufacturers, or both? Generic products are a thing of the past I guess, so very little came up. But I *did* found that, nowadays, store-brand products are sometimes called generic products. Strictly seen, this is false. I found two old studies, which I both cited. One study cited a 1979 WSJ article titled "Generic Products Are Winning Noticeable Shares of Market From National Brands, Private Labels". I cited this as extra evidence. I wrote a single paragraph to clarify the difference between store brands and generic brands. It begins with: "Generic brands are often associated with store brands.". This was the most neutral, objective description I could think of.
Then remove the store brands like Great Value from the see also section. What the hell does that mean? - Manifestation (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It means you listed private labor store brands in the see also section of the generic brands articles as examples, which is incorrect even if the article that is as old as I am is accepted as defining. It tells me you don't really understand the claimed distinction you are making. Malt-O-Meal is probably more in line with the intended definition, for example, but that's still a nationally available brand name, albeit not heavily advertised. oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Oooh, you mean this. I did not add those links! I have in fact never edited the Generic brand article. You were right about deleting them, since they are private labels. - Manifestation (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: It's been 8 days now. Apparently, you had no more words to write? Again, leave the {{essay}} template in if you must. But I'm pretty sure you got the wrong end of the stick. Have a nice day, Manifestation (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing additional to add. I still think it needs a once over for tone, but that's about it. oknazevad (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Then you should change the tag to {{tone}}. - Manifestation (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that I can agree with. oknazevad (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Negro Leagues as major

Now that the Federal League question appears to be settled, should the particular Negro Leagues recognized as "major" by MLB and sites like baseballreference also appear on the yearly season pages? Seems like the Federal League precedent would apply, but when it was discussed on the Talk page, it was basically a 1-1 stalemate. Jhn31 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I say we take a wait-and-see approach, just because the integration of the records is still ongoing.

This in contrast to the Federal League, which has been formally recognized since 1968 and the recognition of which based on the original settlement between the FL and the AL/NL back in 1915, the one that saw the Chicago Whales merge with the Cubs under the ownership of Whales owner Charles Weeghman (for which we still have the Friendly Confines), the Pittsburgh Rebels to merge with the Pirates, and the St Louis Terriers to merge with the Browns. The only thing they didn't really do there was have the remaining teams join the AL & NL as expansion teams, as had happened when the NL absorbed the original American Association (a league which was also formally recognized in 1968, it should be noted). Of course, not doing that is what led to the anti-trust exemption, but that is an off-the-field item, and not relevant to recognition of the FL as a major league.oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. Aside from this issue, what are your thoughts on standardizing all of the "____ Major League Baseball season" articles, which have dramatically different sections depending on the year, different formats, etc., and also just go back to 1901 rather than 1876 (1871?). I'd be happy to take the lead on that, but I don't want to step on any toes, and the project Talk page doesn't really get a lot of comments to build a consensus.

My suggestion would be Standings, Postseason, Awards, League Leaders, all in a standardized format, and cut out a lot of the extra stuff that dominates the most recent seasons' articles, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise on most of that. Jhn31 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about standardization. While I'd be fine with ensuring that all of the season articles have some common basics covered, the extra stuff is really what we should be adding to older articles instead of removing from recent ones. It's more critical to make them less pure statistical listings. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me honestly. However, the format of the statistical leaders varies from season to season (size, order, stats included), and I feel like that should be the same in all of them. Also, which order all of things appear in the articles is not the same from season to season.

What are your thoughts on adding "____ Major League Baseball season" articles for 1876 (1871?) through 1899? Jhn31 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I think the "18xx in baseball" articles are probably sufficient for now. oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yanks

Hey thanks for showing sources on the Yankees and original American League orioles. I still consider the original orioles part of the franchise. But for me tho. I think the fact you showed by sources by how the team got demolished by McGraw as pretty interesting. I still think that he is one of the reasons why the Yankees exist is mind boggling. Like I said I will consider the orioles team as part of the Yankees. Although I read somewhere it’s apparently disputed. Not sure if it is. Thanks for preserving history. Your a true Wikipedian. A.R.M. 04:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Not disputed, just an bit of conventional thinking that was given an official correction a few years ago. Funnily enough, the whole reason anyone looked into it was because wether or not those two season should be included would determine when the team reached 10,000 franchise regular season wins, the first teams to reach that milestone despite there being franchises that are upwards of 30 years older. oknazevad (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking last night I could put down some of the articles into the redirect article and just add the references from other pages. It’s gonna take a while cause I’m not sure how the page for the original American League orioles are gonna be shown. I will help in any way to help the partial Yankee history in preserving the history in that team. A.R.M. 12:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The CW

Hey there,

Regarding your reversal of the removal of content on the CW, Nexstar has publicly stated already via investor calls and presentations that they own the CW and as of August 15, have operational control of The CW. The confusion I think you have on the matter is that while the transaction itself is expected to close in the third quarter of 2022, Nexstar has control now of The CW and operations around it.

I'd suggest reading the official press release here, https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-to-acquire-the-cw-network/, and listening to the investor presentation https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar_cw_acquisition_webcast_2022/ Tazetheog (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It remains that The CW is not yet 75% owned by Nexstar Media Group; hence your edit is premature. Regardless of what Nexstar says in its media releases, wait until the transaction closes. General Ization ^Talk 01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

PONY League

Hi, I was updating content about PONY Baseball and Softball and I noticed that PONY League redirects there, from a re-target you implemented in May 2021. While contemporary use of "PONY League" would almost certainly be in reference to the youth organization, there are a large number of historical uses of "PONY League" in various MLB season articles that should send users to the New York–Penn League article. See for example what links here, a specific example being 1947 Boston Red Sox season#Farm system. I was thinking we should probably have a specific redirect for the historical minor league, something like [[PONY League (minor league)]] or similar that would target New York–Penn League, which then could be placed in the MLB season articles. Thoughts? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I could see doing that. Creating [[PONY League (minor league)]] would allow for the use of the pipe trick to create a link that just says "PONY League". On the other hand, just fixing the links to point to the NY-Penn League is probably a better idea. oknazevad (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked around a bit further and found that there's already an existing Pennsylvania–Ontario–New York League, which redirects to New York–Penn League. I'll update the applicable MLB articles with [[Pennsylvania–Ontario–New York League|PONY League]], in the (unlikely) event that the history of the Pennsylvania–Ontario–New York League gets split off from the New York–Penn League at some point. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. I can't imagine the article getting split, being it is the same league with just a name change. oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

American Conservatory Theatre

I get your point re: linking the Geary. It seems like splitting the article would make sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. I mean, the building is on the NRHP, so it's definitely notable. The fact that the main infobox of an article about the company is not the company infobox tells me that the article is trying to be two separate things at once and it's not working. oknazevad (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Theater seating capacity

Thanks for your edits to the Liberty Theatre and New Victory Theater articles. Regarding the seating capacity of Broadway and former Broadway theaters, you have a point that each theater's seating capacity is approximate and may vary depending on the show. I was thinking of adding a footnote to every Broadway theater's article, similar to the one in the infobox of Palace Theatre (New York City), indicating this discrepancy. Unfortunately, I can't find a source explicitly saying that the capacity of each theater may change for different productions, even though we both know it to be true. I was wondering if you knew of any such sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Poke around the Playbill site. I'm sure there's an article in their archives discussing the matter. I know it to be true from professional experience (I'm an IATSE stagehand these days). But as a good source, I'm sure Playbill mentions it. oknazevad (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Strong Mayor, Mayor Council, Week Mayor in California

Hi Oknazeved In California there are 2 week mayor forms and there strong mayor in the week mayor the mayor council is when a mayor is elected at large and shares the power with the city manager and a week mayor is the council-manager form so if you can make change the title on the Los Angeles from mayor council to strong mayor it will still go to the same page it just clarifies witch mayor council it is in California I know its gets confusing so message me if you need clarification or any thing else thank you for you understanding. 2603:8001:2902:64F4:D06A:5D79:A98F:2CCE (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand the difference, which is hardly unique to California. It's really the difference between having an executive mayor or a mayor that's a non-executive council chairperson. The former is the strong mayor version. The latter can be the weak version of mayor–council or council–manager, depending on whether there is a single appointed chief administrator with specified duties or not. And even then there's particular differences from one town to another. The lines aren't necessarily strict, and the traditional categorization, frankly, is deficient as it focuses too much on the existence of a single city manager instead of whether the mayor is the chief executive, but it's the convention outside sources use. oknazevad (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

okay can we change the mayor council to strong mayor on Los Angeles and San Francisco it goes to the same page but its good to change the title for California strong mayor cities to make it less confusing and for the Week Mayor showed I put Mayor Council Week Mayor on it or link the Week Mayor on the Mayor Council? 2603:8001:2902:64F4:D06A:5D79:A98F:2CCE (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think you should make any changes. You can't spell well enough. oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

okay can you do the changes for my then please 2603:8001:2902:64F4:D06A:5D79:A98F:2CCE (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Dnd Published Number of books

First of all i'd like to thank you for correcting my error. I had no idea that the website was the distributor for canada and for that im thankful. However there's still some concerns I have about the number of books published. Dnd beyond which is now a WOTC subsidiary has Legendary bundle that states it has 44 books. Of Course this bundle was created before some newer books were published and even on the Penguin house website there are more than 30 listed. MrPumpkin1243 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

ah, I see you changed the wording to dozens, this is a great addition thank you MrPumpkin1243 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Category should NOT have been deleted

I don't see this Category:Professional wrestling jobbers could have had been deleted as it was closed as keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_24#Category:Professional_wrestling during a previous afd meaning is should have been KEPT! Did you not know that it was closed as keep? Also I created it as was not even let known that it was up for deletion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm hardly the only one that supported deletion, which was unanimous in the most recent discussion. Let it go. And please don't comment on this on may page again. I don't care enough to get into a debate about it. oknazevad (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Edits of Talk:NEXT (Chinese band) and NEXT (Chinese band)

I think you might not understand what you did. You didn't remove the edit by the blocked user and you didn't close the RM. You instead just removed the warning from someone else and removed the notice about the RM. The notice was promptly restored by a bot, and the RM remains open without any warning about who initiated it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Hit rollback instead of undo. Either way, it shouldn't stay because of WP:DENY. I'll fix the issue. And I apologize for removing your good faith comment in the process, but a good faith response to a bad faith proposal (as socking is inherently) sometimes gets caught in the wake. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

iGiggled

seriously this is the best edit summary. I feel the need to have a randöm umlaut in tribute. Star Mississippi 16:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Their called the Japan Islanders. I checked and that's what their called. 23.242.174.8 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

They're not even on the schedule for next year, replaced by a new team. If you're going to bother to update the league, update it correctly. Typically, for the Empire League and Pecos League, however, we don't update them until around the start of their season as they have a habit of changing things at the last minute. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit war on Snooker

Hi, I today revoked your edit on Snooker. It was entitled "6x3 is just a British-style pool table. And 4 feet is utterly dubious tosh. The attempt at listing every undersized table is unneeded rubbish" which is unconstructive (and does contradict your talk page's "constructive criticism and overall being a patient and 'nice guy'").

The existing text explains out that snooker is commonly played on reduced/home-sized tables, including those down to 4-foot. A Google search for 'snooker 4 foot table' shows these on sale and readily available, so small effort shows nothing 'dubious' or 'tosh'. I imagine you are very unfamiliar with snooker to have made such an edit.

You subsequently reinstated your edit and I have again reinstated the existing text, which has value and should be in the article. Please do not continue edit warring by changing this again. If the existing text needs substantiating references then this is not a constructive route to it. Instead, please put your proposal on the Snooker talk page for discussion and await responses. Thank you. ToaneeM (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Remkving unsourced material is not edit warring. Also, my reversion was a mistake in that I thought you were reverting a different edit, one that was removing the usual unsourced editorializing I've seen from a particular contributor. That said, yes, the material needs to be sourced, and I'll tag it as such. oknazevad (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced material is not for carefree deletion and when such a change a change is contested, that should be treated politely and constructively, which this clearly wasn't. Re-reading it, can you see that the comment on your change (shown above) was unconstructive at best and dismissive and belligerent for many? That, and the subsequent immediate reversion of my reinstatement, to the denigration of the article and with no real justification, will present themselves as edit warring.

Please do be constructive in editing and in change comments. The site doesn't benefit from the fallout from any bad experiences you've had from another editor. If the article you're editing is on an unfamiliar subject to you, consider that your edits may well harm it, not benefit it.

It's to the denigration of the article because play on smaller home tables is popular way that many children get started in snooker or practice at home (amongst that large number being Stephen Hendry. The 12'x6' table is too high until age 10 or so. Pool is a very different game and UK pool tables don't work as a training aid. Small snooker tables are popular and relevant. I will add a discussion note to the article. ToaneeM (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We should probably just say "is also played on smaller tables". The actual sizes aren't all that important. Unless there is a good source stating what all the different sizes are, that's fine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of verbiage signifying nothing except that you don't like it being pointed out that, by policy, unsourced material can be removed at any time. The condescension in your messages is obvious, obnoxious, and far less collegial than anything I've done.

Lee cuts to the chase. We don't need a laundry list of uncommon sizes. Especially one with poor or non-existent sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

By site policy, please be constructive and reasonable in your edits and communications, rather than getting personal and making unfounded accusations. They don't read well, by site policy. There's no 'chase'. The site's about producing good quality articles. ToaneeM (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You've made your point. I see nothing unreasonable about my style. Yours, on the other hand, is obnoxious in its haughtiness. I have no time to deal with holier-than-thou nonsense. Don't post here again. oknazevad (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Are you really going to edit war to force your preferred wording over a consensus reached through discussion? How do you think this is going to end for you? Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one restoring poor linking patterns based on an outdated discussion. oknazevad (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 is "outdated"????? MLB stadiums have been around since, what, 1912? You must be joking. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to WT:BASEBALL. I pinged you there. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You're about 1 edit away from being reported for this behavior. I'd advise you to stop. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr. & Mrs. Pac-Man

Hi, @Oknazevad: I reviewed that article as part of WP:NPP. I reverted it back to the redirect. There is nothing on the article that supports an independent article. There is no secondary coverage on the game, instead fan profile and listicle sites have been used to give a give it a veneer of notability that doesn't exists. Essentially it been copied and pasted. Don't revert it. scope_creep^Talk 09:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Baby Pac-Man, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Amfleet

If you search Amfleet and Ambleteuse together you'll see results, and not just from mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm not making this up. This is the first result on Google Books: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did such a Google books search, and they're literally all the same two 170-year old things repeatedly reprinted. And it's a hagiography. I just cannot agree that it's a worthwhile hatnote, as an obscure a straight up incorrect alternate name form an unreliable source is nit worthy of a hatnote. oknazevad (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2022 (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 {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit in Pepperoni

Hi, I guess I should say good policing! You reverted my edit for Pepperoni in less than 30 minutes! :D Anyway, wanted to give you my 2 cents about it. I get your point that it was "unsourced" as technically I didn't put a reference to the end. However, I had considered it "sourced" with providing the Wiktionary link to the German meaning. I did consider about referring to menus from German or Italian restaurants but those basically just give the same information that Wiktionary provides.

Considering that this is a rather helpful (perhaps even important) clarification about international meanings, I'd personally recommend putting the info in at least in some format. A look at the talk page also confirms that there is some confusion about the terminology.

So instead of reverting completely I would have myself rewritten it so that it works (for example just with the Wiktionary link.) That being said, this was just random edit from me who stumbled onto the page by accident. Couldn't really care less how it is as I probably won't end up there ever again. :) Cheers! Gemena (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary, like all wiki projects, is user generated and not an acceptable source. Even if you were to use another, non-user generated German dictionary, though, it still wouldn't be sufficient sourcing, because the anecdote about getting the wrong pizza topping, which indeed happened to me in Rome (fortunately I like bell peppers on pizza anyway), is entirely unsourced. oknazevad (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. This isn't about telling an anecdote. One can still make the point about the terminology with dictionary sources etc. Like I said, simple rewording instead of hasty deletion would have been better, in my humble opinion. But like I said, this particular instance doesn't interest me and I am not about to waste your time debating it. Just wanted to give you my view on editing practices in general. Happy editing! Gemena (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for it at all. This isn't a travel guide. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

hey

[2] i said in my message that this was the best place i could find Allaoii ^talk 23:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Still not appropriate. Wikipedia talk pages are not message boards or Q&A pages. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

i dont have a choice this website is the best i have Allaoii ^talk 23:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't care. Don't post here again. oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)