User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 7

Korn

Dave, I replaced the statement about the "dubious" reputation of Korn in Germany by a more neutral and authentic one. Both, original statement and replacement are unsourced. The original statement sounds like by a teetotaler American below legal drinking age. So please allow to replace this outside assesment by one by a a person who has lived in the country for 50 years. Thank you and cut the youth elite cult out. 70.137.138.93 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indiana Jones (franchise)

Hello, regarding your removal of the "Shared themes" section at Indiana Jones (franchise), can you comment on the talk page? The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please comment at the discussion when you have a chance? Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oknazevad. You have new messages at WT:VAND.
Message added 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Forgot to put name 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Oknazevad. You have new messages at Djflem's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Grand Central Terminal centennial

I'm just making a guess here, but perhaps the reason that many of the editors are reverting your edits on the paragraph about the Grand Central Terminal centennial might have to do with keeping the events in chronological order. Just a thought. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

NYPD Shields

Ok, you are probably right about K9 Unit. Although, I thought it was cute when I first saw it. Getting back to the main issue, what is your suggestion to the solution of putting the badges/shields in the current table, since they are a function of rank? I can make a separate table. JMvanDijk —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting good shield images is the problem. These look uncopywrighted: http://police-badges.de/hidden/nypd.html. JMvanDijk —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sara Niemietz possesive

Oknazevad, yes Ms. Niemietz and I discussed this early on.

• If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian,[20] Yahoo! Style Guide,[21] The American Heritage Book of English Usage.[22] Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended.

Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound

Regards 009o9 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". Would you kindly return to the talk page and see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oknazevad. You have new messages at Talk:Centerstage (theater).
Message added 09:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGA _talk^edits 09:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

World Financial Capital

Hi Dave, I let your rather overreaching edit and edit summaries in the NYC article go for now to avoid an argument or confrontation. But I think you just "threw the baby out with the bath water" here, as the expression goes, and I think this should be addressed. 1) First, just housekeeping - removing cites just because they included copyright tags simply doesn't make sense. Pertinent refs should be restored, without those tags if you don't like them. 2) More importantly, however, there really was no consensus at that Rfc. In fact, I thought I recalled at least one or two other editors indicating they agreed New York was definitely number one. But that aside, I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say that New York "has been termed" (or alternatively "called", or "described as", or "referred to as") the world's leading "financial center" (if the Rfc is supposedly saying don't use the term "financial capital"); and of course, citing it properly. I believe your most recent edit does not do justice to reality, when the original statement actually had well-cited support. Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the way it read to me is that there was strong agreement that the term is inherently promotional and neededn't be used. As for the cites, it was just a matter of not needing that many. The bit about the copyright tags was just an additional observation that made me realize that there was common problem on the page about that. (And it is a problem; including copyright tags basically makes a claim that the entire page is copyright one of those entities, when its not. But that's what my subseqeunt edit was for.)oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK fine, thank you - in that case, I am going to modify the statement to say that New York has been CALLED the world's leading financial center (because written as such, THAT statement is an indisputable FACT) and place four or five cites (without the copyright tags). This statement avoids both of the Rfc controversies about 1) ascertaining that a city is the financial capital (by the way, I checked again, and at least one other editor was strongly in favor of New York - so I don't believe there was any consensus in the first place - I believe the idea that there was an actual consensus was simply rammed through by the editor who brought up the Rfc - but I'll let this go) and 2) using the term financial "capital".

Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Castncoot, please tell me how I rammed anything through. I set up an RfC using the correct procedure with a completely neutral statement. I put notes on the London and NYC pages for interested editors to respond. I then waited for the RfC to expire. This is correct WP:Dispute resolution procedure. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

But the fact is that the dispute has NOT been resolved. You rammed the pretense of a consensus through, and in the worst possible way. There is not, and was never, any real consensus. I had made my point clear that the articles should remain the way the way there, and I left the discussion stating clearly I had no interest in prolonging the discussion. That's not the same thing as relenting to the opposite viewpoint. I do also have a real life, you know.

Furthermore, "has been called" is not a weasel term. It is saying something completely different from ascertaining that one city or another holds the title. And it's appropriately sourced. Castncoot (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are you guys continuing this debate on my talk page? oknazevad (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cosmos managers

I tried to differentiate between the "Original Club" and the "Contemporary Club", but everything I tried was far too cluttered and bulky. I'm not experienced with the managers template, so if you know a way to do this, I'd really appreciate the help! -- Fifty7 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright reversions

I just noted your edit summary in the NYC article. Don't ever use that tone with me (or any other editor) again, please - that was extremely inappropriate on your part. I didn't realize that you had changed the other copyright tags - my edit was inadvertent. Castncoot (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not using the word please, but I've got to question how you could miss the copyright tag removal when it was an edit of 3k, and was directly referenced with a lengthy edit summary, and in the above conversation. oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Pristina, Kosovo

Thanks for noting in the NYC article that Pristina is in Kosovo, not Albania! Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

SEPTA Route 15, F Market & Wharves, and other Heritage trolleys

I realize that SEPTA Route 15 isn't run on a limited basis, but I thought the fact that exclusively use old refurbished PCC Streetcars makes that route a Heritage streetcar, just like F Market & Wharves in SF. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the PCC-IIs only look old; they're actually fully modern underneath. But the real point of the removal is that Line 15 isn't along the lines of, say, the Waterfront Red Car that I did italicize. That only runs on weekends with a very short route. That's the idea behind a heritage streetcar. That line 15 is run with the regular SEPTA Kawasaki trolleys if needed is part of it. oknazevad (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

=

Good catch

My oops! It all looks the same in plain-text code!   :-)   — Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Religion in Austria

Hello, Oknazevad, thank you for your input. The word denomination does not properly apply to the Roman Church. It [the Roman Catholic Church] does not define itself as a denomination, nor presents itself as one, due to its continuity of history.

This language was derived from the Protestant Movement [The Reformation and Post Reformation period] to distinguish one from the other i.e., Lutheran, Calvinists, Baptist and so on. This is the language of this body of Christians. Therefore, it is imprecise to state, or characterize, the Roman Catholic Church as a "denomination". We should respect and honor their self-definition as a matter of civility rather than an allowance of others to define them through their historical lens as they write and reflect on their own history.

The word Creed, though imperfect, is correct, in the sense that, Creed, means, loosely, "What we believe." Therefore, it is useful and respectful to state they adhere to the same Creed. Look forward to your feedback. 67.167.210.70 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what the church teaches about itself. But that doesn't change standard English and we do not advocate for a particular PoV in articles. "Denomination" is the correct term in standard English and should be used in the article. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Lists of tropical cyclone names". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary at Lists of tropical cyclone names

Your edit summary here is entirely inappropriate under multiple policies. Yes, the IP editor is factually incorrect and doesn't realize it, but that doesn't mean that they can be attacked. You bring up WP:COMPETENCE in a different edit, but even that states "It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to incompetent people. Rude and uncivil comments can discourage the motivation of the targeted editor, raising their psychological barrier against recognizing their own mistakes or seeking to improve their skills."

You may want to step away and let the dispute be resolved. --Michael Greiner 02:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no "dispute" here. That said, yeah, I was out of line in frustration. oknazevad (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me

I think that User:KikeFolan just reverted you on List of current champions in WWE. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek

Sorry for posting before I had a chance to link references to my sources (yes I have sources, Wikipedia itself has all the data I added, before you deleted it). I am new to doing this and still learning how exacaly to add to pages. Perhaps instead of just deleting what someone adds in, it would be more usefull to help said person correct what he added in so it will fit and follow the policies set forth. Im sure you just like anyone else, made mistakes when you first where adding and editing Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordan Leyoub (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

star trek

Ok, you want examples, and yes I WILL link these as soon as I can, so even you cant say its wrong.

And I will rebut them all.

Kirk not being born on the kelvin. In the Original Series Episode "The Deadly Years" it was established that kirk was born in 2233 in Iowa on planet Earth.

Change in the timeline wrought by Nero's incursion. Completely invalid.

Kirks older brother (not mentioned in this movie), was mentioned in the Original Series episode "Operation - Annihilate!", yet in the movie it was stated that he was an only child.

George Jr makes a cameo as a young kid when Kirk steals his step dad's car. That's George Jr that he tells to.

The information I posted about pike was from the original series episodes "The Cage, parts 1 and 2" and "The Menagerie"

Which didn't happen in this timeline at all.

Vulcan having no moon was established in "The Man Trap", and in the movie kirk was stranded on the Vulcan Moon.

Actually it was another planet in the Vulcan system, not a moon.

As far as the time travel police, well nearly every episode of the Star Trek: Enterprise series dealt with them. However if you need reference to specific episodes, here you are: "Cold Front", "Shockwave", "Shockwave, pt2", and "Zero Hour". The time police I mention is the "Department of Temporal Investigations", which was mentioned in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Cold Front". If needed, this was provided by Crewman Daniels, in said episodes. As far as the space being warped while travel, Heck, any episode of star trek that has any ship at warps shows this, and AGAIN it was changed in the movie.

So where were they in The Voyage Home?

I wont be editing it in tonight, but I will be re-editing it in tomorrow hopefully, and will be linking references. If the part I put in (All in all, many a star trek fan where disappointed by the changes in the movie, while newer fans liked the action (even if uncorrect in cannon).) then I CAN add in references to tons of websites where fans show and say just that.

If it takes that to allow you to have this part added in by me, ill link in references to hundreds of sites if need be, but I do think it will become redundant after a while just to make it good enough for you.

Now will linking references to all I stated above (and more if need be) be good enough for you??

Lordan Leyoub (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say, unless someone else says it first. That's the main point of WP:NOR, which is ironclad policy. Wikipedia is not here for you to air your gripes. oknazevad (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

NY Area Codes

Hi, I saw that you noticed a lot of glaring errors in the NY Area Code maps. I have made several rounds of corrections and think the current Master Map at Commons:File:Area codes ny.svg is pretty close to reality. Would you please give it a glance and let me know if you see any further issues? If I don't hear anything in a few days, I will make a new round of derivative maps and roll them out. Many Thanks!--Arg342 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudson Subdivision, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lottery Clarification

Hey thank you for the edits. The reason I added case studies to this particular article was the fact that lottery policies in the united states are vastly different and there is not one all-encompassing policy statement. I thought that using three different states to take a closer look at would be beneficial in addition to the links that were existing. I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCUTHROWS (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My concern, simply put, is that there is an inherent selection bias in which states are chosen. For example, of the three states chosen, two were from the South and one from the Wrst. None were from the Northeast or the Midwest, so regional issues come into play. It leads to problems with creating a full picture.

bBut more importantly, concluding anything more than the basic "lotteries are conducted at the state level and vary from state to state" is synthesizing an original conclusion, which runs against policy. As such, there's really nothing more that should be said at the overview article that isn't better served by covering it in more detail at the individual state articles. To choose only a few states instead of linking to the more detailed and comprehensive articles for all lottery jurisdictions actually does a disservice to readers by not giving them the full picture. It's one of the strengths of Wikipedia being web-based that we can actually give the readers more by spreading the information out. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

South Ferry

Excuse me, I am here with this issue. The sentence is not just "South Ferry did not reopen until April", but it has a link to a certain article. The station in the article is closed. The fact that both stations bear the same name doesn't mean it's the same station. Am I wrong? Vcohen (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the same station; they share a mezzanine. It's just the tracks are different. That reference does need to be updated, but the 1 train does go to South Ferry, so saying it's still closed is outdated.oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to say it is the same complex? We try not to mix the concepts of station and complex. When we say the NYC Subway has 468 stations, we count each of them alone. When we say the SF station is closed, we don't mean the whole complex is closed including Whitehall Street, because Whitehall Street is a separate station, even if they share a mezzanine. Vcohen (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not referring to Whitehall St when I say South Ferry is open. Maybe you missed the news, but the MTA actually reopened the former loop track as a temporary measure to restore 1 Train service to South Ferry while they assess and repair the damage to the newer stub-end tracks that were flooded by Hurricane Sandy. So the South Ferry station is open. See here and here.oknazevad (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not miss the news. The complex includes three stations: the old South Ferry, the new South Ferry, and Whitehall Street. The new SF is closed, the other two are not. Vcohen (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Only partly, though, as the mezzanine built as part of the new station has indeed reopened. I edited the main article to clarify. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#NOTE: is something you may be looking for... Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 23:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Colored links in PATH articles

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Template:Rail text color and comment there, if you wish. - dcljr (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Grammar and definite articles in relation to the term MLS

Thanks for doing this. However I have had to revert at least two of your edits. When MLS is used as an adjective, such as in the phrase "the MLS expansion teams", the definite article is correct. Also, the goonies is a referenced nickname for the team so I suggest you check the content before blindly reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something Lepper, Geoff. "Lenhart: "Goonies never say die!"". Retrieved October 13, 2012. claims that the team used the term for one season and it's in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "MLS expansion teams" work either with or without the definite article, because of the plural. Yes, it is referring to those specific expansion teams, and therefore can get the article, since "teams" is a plural noun, it is not necessary. Also, in the phrase "MLS' Inagural Game" (which is over capitalized anyway) MLS is a possessive noun, not an adjective.oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fireball

Hello. The question of whether the "Fireball Cinnamon Whiskey" product is a liqueur or not is being discussed at Talk:Fireball (liqueur). If you have an opinion on the matter (regardless of what your opinion might be), I invite you to comment there.

You may find some relevant background information by reviewing these:

• The history of newly-created article
• The history of prior article
• User:Ccharters user page and User talk:Ccharters talk page
• contribution log of new user
• Talk:Sazerac Company talk page of the company that makes the product.

—BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oknazevad. You have new messages at Talk:Canadian soccer league system.
Message added 05:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:New York City FC

You are admittedly right that it isn't 100% certain which colours NYCFC will use, but can I point out that the official website is entirely decked out in Man City colours? Also, since this club was created to expand the Manchester City brand across world football, and the Yankees were only brought on to act as a negotiating partner, I think it's fair to assume that the club is going to be based on City's traditions. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You presume entirely too much. Fails WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL in all ways. oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas the Apostle

Could you please rescue the page Thomas the Apostle from being repeatedly vandalized by jijithnr. PalakkappillyAchayan 05:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It has come to the notice of Indian authorities that this St Thomas article is being used as a propaganda material for religious conversion of Hindus into Christianity. Do not become party to this. Use your scholarship for other better purpose. Remove all the sentances and graphics offensive to Hinduism and Hindus from the St Thomas article, in order to make it POV free. Jijithnr (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, that's really keeping it NPOV. And that bit about name dropping vague claims of "authorities" is not the least bit intimidating, but does come perilously close to a legal threat. Either way, you, and only you, are consistently trying to change the article to include your PoV against the repeated reversions by multiple other editors. It is clear you are a PoV-pushing edit warrior. Cease now, or you will be blocked. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Again reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Apostle&action=history PalakkappillyAchayan 09:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

New York and Putnam Railroad Station lists

Would you care to wikify the station lists for the New York and Putnam Railroad article? I thought something like what you've got in New York, Westchester and Boston Railway might be worth considering, but since it linked the Hudson Line with the Harlem Line, perhaps something closer to those would be more acceptable. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be good, but I don't have enough information to really handle it. Also, I can't claim credit for the list/chart at the NYW&B article; that wasn't my work. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just using NYW&B as an example. The same goes for the two former NYC lines. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Uniforms of the United States Navy

I left the following on my talk page but I thought I would put it here as well to be sure you got it

Thanks. As you note, I was fooled. I suppose I should have looked it up, perhaps even let it go. Maybe a citation needed tag would have been best. Although we see that word in vandalism quite a bit, I suppose some sort of odd name for a uniform is not completely absurd. I will apologize and delete the warning if you have not done so. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I left the following on the IP user's page:

I apologize for my mistake. AS Oknazevad points out, we see "poop" or a variation of the word in vandalism all the time. In retrospect, I should have realized the name was something sailors would make up, or looked it up, or left a citation needed tag. I am glad the warnings have already been deleted. I would have done that if they had not been. We make mistakes occasionally but I hope you can understand why it was done in this case. I also hope you will see that this can be corrected quickly and will accept this apology. Please do not let this deter you from contributing further to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Luther Bible

Translated excerpts from the subject of an article, and by extension their summaries, do not constitute original research. Regardless, I have re-added the content without descriptions to satisfy this objection, but I still consider the change to be somewhere between counterproductive and destructive, especially from the perspective of a reader.   — C M B J   02:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern was the analysis. The article has had a severe NPOV problem in the past (it couldn't have been more outright fawning), so I remain wary of such creeping back in, even inadvertently. oknazevad (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ROH

Please stop edit warring. you are violating WP:3RR, and quite honestly you are acting like you own this article. ROH is in fact a national wrestling promotion owned by a national media conglomerate. Just because you don't think that they are world title worthy doesn't mean that it's fact (and PWI isn't the end all-be all either). If you don't stop this edit warring, I will request you be blocked. Thank You. (talk) Vjmlhds 20:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I explained my reasons, and called for you to go to the talk page (per WP:BRD) but you persisted in editing without looking at the discussion there at all. As for the content, no RoH is not a national promotion, as it has no national television deal, and is not viewable in any of the top 10 media markets. This has been discussed before, not just at that talk page, but also has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors at Template:Professional wrestling in the United States. Consistency demands we don't include them. oknazevad (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC) PS, sorry about the initial strident tone, and thank you for the award.

You're welcome for the award...you put in the time and edits to deserve it. And I didn't mean to go all "I'm gonna block you" earlier (on 1st look, it did look like you were going tit for tat edit with me, which raised my antennae, but a second look said otherwise). Let's take a deep breath and talk for a sec. I can't in good conscience call ROH an indy. It's clearly a cut above the average indy. Your average indy would kill to have what ROH has. If anything ROH is a low-level national promotion...kinda where ECW was a decade and a half ago. At one time ROH was on a national cable network (Mark Cuban's HD Net) for a couple of years until that deal fell through, then Sinclair came in and did their thing. But ROH is, and has been, where most indys would like to be. Now please don't get me wrong...I'm not comparing ROH to WWE or even TNA, all I'm saying is that there's enough cache there to consider them a national promotion, and their title being world title worthy. (talk) Vjmlhds 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

While I don't agree that they truly are national (HD Net being barely national itself at the time), I wouldn't inherently revert anymore, as the your point does have merit. Maybe a good thing to take to WT:PW to see what the broader community thinks. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool beans by me. Look at it like this...what ROH is in the US, is what NOAH is in Japan...the upstart #3 promotion. Another way is that 2013 ROH is similar to 1999 ECW. At the end of the day, ROH got there...granted at the bottom rung of there...but there none the less. Having a couple of years on a national cable network and being owned by a billion dollar media conglomerate that puts the show on all it's stations puts ROH (by any reasonable measure) way above the run of the mill indy, dipping it's toes into the national level pool. (talk) Vjmlhds 23:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents)

There has been recent discussion re reopening this debate amongs members of WP:UKT. How do we go about this, reopen discussion on the talk page and flag it up at WP level? Or is there another way? Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say if its really needed. This guideline would have been about whether an incident deserved its own article, not whether it belongs on a list (which is actually a good place to include something that isn't notable enough for a standalone article). The consensus in the discussion at WT:RAILCRASH was that the WP:GNG was sufficient for deciding if something got a standalone article, which I agree with. Inclusion criteria for a list article should be handled at the list article talk page. And again, a list article is a good place to put something not notable enough for a standalone, that is, just be aide something isn't notable enough for its own article does not mean it should be deleted from a list. oknazevad (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was more about culling minor (non-notable) accidents from lists than deciding on stand-alone articles. Maybe it's just going to be a case of boldly culling stuff. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, RAILCRASH was intended to be about standalone articles, so it's relevance to list articles is non-existant. It was also fundamentally flawed, treating track workers the same as trespassers (track workers are supposed to be there) and actually would have expanded the notability beyond the GNG. It's a dead letter; list contents are better discussed at the individual talk page. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toronto Centre for the Arts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thrust stage may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{columns-list|2|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Empire Theatre (42 Street), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cinema and 42nd Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

List of metro systems

Please read here:
"The name of the system is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line with no component of rapid transit whatsoever.--FS Italia (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am we aware of the criteria. The note you removed was explaining exactly that, that only some lines in Naples are metro lines. I think you misunderstood it.oknazevad (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't need any note, as for every city only "real metros" are displayed. In Naples only line 1 and line 6 are metros, while line 2 is a commuter rail service operated by the state railways, that shares the tracks with other kind of trains (even long-distance).--FS Italia (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Cross of St. Peter

Wikipedia isn't expressing a personal opinion when saying that something is "not valid with respect to traditional conventions of Christian symbolism", but reporting a historical fact. The Christian meaning of St. Peter's Cross goes back centuries, while the anti-Christian meaning is only relatively recent -- and your edit unfortunately seems mainly to obscure and obfuscate this critical fact... AnonMoos (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The word "valid", in matters of religion, is an opinion. It needs a source (which is what my cut off edit summary was meant to say). As it is, it is uncited, and therefore can be removed. Either find a source or rephrase that bit to be more neutral in describing it as a recent phenomenon. Actually, the second way you phrased it here is far superior. oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Christianity is a valid religion, I'm saying that within the realm of traditional Christian symbolism, St. Peter's Cross is understood as a symbol of Christianity, not a symbol against Christianity. I don't really understand what the alleged problem is.... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to say "This is a historical Christian symbol, though has been used in recent times as an anti-Christian one." That is a neutral description of what is, without any value judgement. It's not Wikipedia's place to call a use valid or invalid, just describe them. If we were to say that others have called it invalid, using a cited reliable source for that opinion, that's also fine. But as it stands, it gives a value judgement in a way that is not valid, it you'll pardon the pun. oknazevad (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you always seem to think that "invalid" is an absolutizing word. The inverted cross as anti-Christian symbol isn't absolutely incorrect, but it does not agree with traditional conventions of Christian symbolism (conventions which are historically older than the anti-Christian use of an inverted cross). That's what the sentence means, but you seem to be reading into it something more which I don't particularly understand the reason for... AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Invalid" is an absolutizing word; some thing is either valid or it is not. I just think there are better ways of phrasing it than essentially saying "this is the original, and therefore true, meaning of the symbol", one that is more descriptive and less prescriptive. I think that would fit NPOV better. oknazevad (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC) PS, please don't re-add spaces between responses on my talk page; I manually archive this page on my iPhone, and the less space it takes up, the easier it is for me to do that.

I wonder how many times I'll have to explain that the wording doesn't say anything about anybody's religion being invalid, only that a newer type of symbolism is in conflict with older and longer-established symbolic conventions. It seems quite clear to me. AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And I don't know how many times I have to explain that the word "invalid" does say that the older use is superior to the newer. "In conflict with" or "differs from" historic use is far more neutral, as it does not place one as superior to the other, which the use of the word "invalid" does. oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page

Don't change other people's talk page comments as you did here. --91.10.61.108 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)