User talk:Old Naval Rooftops

April 2013

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm Dr Greg. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Toast because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dr Greg talk 23:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools 2014

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eye snore (pc) 01:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

^{[April Fools!]}

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for running a Dalek on this account without approval. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Under the Extermination policy, all Daleks must be approved by the External Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources.

CodeCat (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be a killjoy, but Daleks are not robots. They are small, mutated blobs inside armour they just look like a duck to you!--203.100.0.82 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xterminate

Why would you want to have the article on the good doctor xterminated?. typical arrogant Unix user. Sometimes i think you guys would rather be robots than humans.(mercurywoodrose stretching the 4/1 humor farther than necessary)99.14.217.178 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor

Wikipedia:Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 move discussions

Star Trek into Darkness

If "into" is the first word of the subtitle, shouldn't there be a colon (:)? If not, well, the whole title is the proper noun. "Star" is an adjective; "Trek" is a noun and may be a complement. "into" is a preposition; Darkness is a noun and a complement. "into Darkness" is a subtitle, but that shouldn't be a reason to move into "Into". This whole issue is confusing and makes MOS:CT and WP:NCCAPS ineffective. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion Talk:MacBook (2015 version)

You participated in the move discussion there. PaleAqua suggested to move the article to MacBook (Retina) instead for a more specific disambiguation, with which I agree. Would you consider that as a preferable alternative to MacBook (2015)? Just want to see whether we can find a consensus there before the discussion is closed again, because currently everyone seems to want something else.–Totie (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gangsta.

You are invited to an ongoing RM; comment there for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created another RM. Make your decision. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshirt

Hello! Just to let you know: During July you commented at a move request, now at Talk:Greyshirt (comics). The discussion was closed as "move". However, one of the discussants has reopened the discussion. Your original comment will still be taken into account and there is no need for you add anything further, but I am notifying all previous discussants as a courtesy. MelanieN (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bend It Like Beckham

There's an ongoing move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oops!... I Did It Again

I invite you to this ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Old Naval Rooftops. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic South of the Border (attraction). Thank you. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — $Llywelyn II$ 11:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools 2016

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Itanimulli listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Itanimulli. Since you had some involvement with the Itanimulli redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.M.M Urdu High School. Thank you for your enthusiasm but bad spelling and grammar, no proof of notability, are not criteria for deletion. Please do not patrol pages or tag any articles for any kind of deletion until you have significantly more experience and have read WP:NPP, WP:DELETION, and WP:OUTCOMES. If you need any help don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016-17 move discussions

Talk:Gladstone

Hello Old Naval Rooftops. If you don't mind, please consider commenting on the move discussion linked above. Thanks.--Nevé –selbert 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murdeshwar

Hello, I have shared a link on the talk page of this page as a reply to your query. Please consider the spelling suggested as the wrong spelling mentioned by the person who first wrote an online article should not be allowed to carry forward. Talk:Murudeshwara#Requested move 23 January 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.186.163 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your unedit on We Are Number One

@Old Naval Rooftops Why did you undo my edit? It doesn't matter if the people on Reddit think if We Are Number One is the best "dank" meme. It should never be mentioned in a Wikipedia article unless if it is about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.248.16 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments. ONR (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gronkowski

please check for residual BLP concerns -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moe. (band) page move

You didn't read the WP:NCCAPS section. It clearly states that a person/band's name may be listed in their preferred style, and uses deadmau5 as an example. Other such people include (but are not limited to) danah boyd, bill bissett, and k.d. lang. I'm not asking for any kind of favoritism. If Wikipedia had no other examples or allowable exceptions then it would be case closed. In fact, Wikipedia seems to favor the artist/band/individual's choice in the matter.

Could you please revise your opposition in light of this evidence? 208.44.170.115 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I referred to the wrong thing. It was this that I meant to post, referencing deadmau5. As you can clearly see, Wikipedia has rule pertaining to artists that allow the use of lowercase and special characters when referring to musicians or other people. Please take a look at it before you finalize your opinion. Thanks! 208.44.170.115 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doyt Perry Stadium

Be sure to read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. In the case of Doyt Perry Stadium, the facility is consistently called as such in secondary sources, such as ESPN.com, local media, and other schools. Even in primary sources, BGSU uses three different variants of the name, calling it "Doyt Perry Stadium" on their facilities page, then using both "Doyt L. Perry Stadium" and just "Perry Stadium" on the https://bgsufalcons.com/sports/2009/6/25/GEN_0625091316.aspx article about the stadium]. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name change refused

Back in May 2018 I requested a simple name change, which you refused, adding your comments. I recently found it had been renamed exactly as requested by a registered editor with no drama.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition of the initial RM was mostly on procedural grounds. I don't feel a move review is necessary. ONR (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools 2020

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're an experienced editor, Old Naval Rooftops. That doesn't give you a license to vandalize pages on April 1st. If you continue, you will be facing a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott The Woz/Madden NFL 08 incidents

Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Madden NFL 08; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. 2603:300F:D38:4000:2C88:1B6A:82BC:955F (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep reverting things

Scott the Woz is important to Madden 08's history, it's not like "Breath of the Wild" or "Mario 64", this is a small title that makes a new entry yearly, Scott The Woz is probably the most notable thing to happen to this game, There's a new entry yearly, there is no point removing it so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidoof The OKay Historian (talk • contribs) 14:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izuru Kamukura

Just realised my close at Talk:Izuru Kamukura was for naught, looks like it was moved to the space-corrected new title. If it was undiscussed, please feel free to file a revert request at WP:RM/TR. Cheers, SITH (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Game blows

I need help to make Scott "Will Eventually Take a Look at the First Mega Man" Wozniak, please? Starkiryu64 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last undefeated team

None of the 16 NFL teams currently undefeated are the last undefeated team in 2021, because any of them can lose before another. O.N.R. ^(talk) 09:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Listen young man - There are currently 16 teams that are undefeated in the 2021 season, and the list is current. It has been done this way since 2016, and the list is true. Get over your self Spparky (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at https://www.pro-football-reference.com/friv/last-undefeated.htm. Since PFR lists all the 2021 undefeated teams, you should leave the page as is. I have the reference for you to look at. Please no more messing w this page. Thanks Spparky (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double-elimination tournament

Hello Old Naval Rooftops,

thank you for your correction of my clarification in the article Double-elimination tournament, section 'Pros and cons'.

Now it sounds more precise and understandable!

But I still want to ask you, why did you take out my last sentence:

That is why the double-elimination format is not used in tournaments of many sports (for example football and tennis).

Maybe you point out that is not the only reason for not using it? Would you agree with the following wording for the last sentence:

This is a most important reason why the double-elimination format is not used in tournaments of many sports that have high fitness requirements (for example, soccer, ice hockey and tennis).

Many greetings --Mathecrat (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My page move, wast to reflect MLB's update playoff format.

Howdy. I moved those pages, to reflect that MLB has changed from the Wild Card Game format, to the Wild Card Series format. If you oppose this? would you accept the creation of a 'new' page, called "Major League Baseball Wild Series"? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move Joker (Persona) to Ren Amamiya to reflect recent developments in regards to the name's canonicity

As of recently, the PC version of Persona 5 Royal has been revealed to automatically assign the default name of Ren Amamiya should the player switch the game's language upon resuming their save file. Especially given the name being associated with the character in other non-manga projects related to Persona 5 as well as on his Amiibo figure description, I think it's a good idea to acknowledge Ren Amamiya as his canon name and move the page to reflect that in the same vein as Yu Narukami from Persona 4

https://www.reddit.com/r/Persona5/comments/y9m07y/jokers_official_name_has_been_confirmed_in_game/ RebelYasha (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic/Czechia ice hockey move

Hi ONR, You closed a requested move at Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team, citing the moratorium at Czech Republic. Mike Cline (closer at Czech Republic) clarified that the moratorium was not intended to impact other articles. This discussion may have been closed prematurely. Please reconsider this closure and arguments specifically related to this RM discussion and building of consensus. Thanks! Wracking ^talk! 18:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Tonight

I didn't know someone actually added a Moon Man song on the Mac Tonight article in 2018, thanks for taking it out. I agree with you that it's not necessary, and that it's garbage. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team

An editor has asked for a Move review of Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Wracking ^talk! 19:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wracking, this discussion was prematurely closed on a false basis. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Men’s OFC Nations Cup Vote

Hello, you commented an oppose vote with how the common name is not the Men’s Nations Cup. I was wondering if you could look at some of the sources I provided & just let me know if you think that it isn’t enough. I haven’t really done many requested moves so probably provided less information than needed in my original update. Thanks! Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

secondhand notification

Per a request by SnowFire (talk · contribs), because of your participation in Talk:Michael Larson#Requested move 22 March 2024, you are being brought up to date on developments. After the article "Press Your Luck scandal" was written, "Michael Larson" was turned into a redirect. That redirect has since been undone (though mischaracterized as a "stealth copy & paste move"), and there are now two active discussions in which you may wish to participate, but might otherwise be unaware of:

Talk:Press Your Luck scandal#Separate articles is discussing WP:BIO1E, the article title, and more.
Talk:Michael Larson (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 May 2024 is discussing which page should be the primary topic and more.

I'm certainly involved in these discussions and will be happy to converse with you there if you're inclined. My apologies if this is undue, but it was implied that I have been negligent in my canvassing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Review

Hello @Old Naval Rooftops, this is to notify you about the move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#Chair (officer). Please put your vote there. PadFoot (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]