User talk:Sbaio/Archive 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox format

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why did you revert my changes? It says on Template:Infobox venue that the parentheses shouldn’t be around the years. SportsFan007 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: The documentation states that the parentheses should not be used for |tenants= parameter only, while you also removed them for the |former_names= parameter. I reverted your additions, because the format written in the documentation is not used anywhere so it is most likely obsolete. Therefore, you should ask about it at Template talk:Infobox venue about the situation. In addition, you also removed the parentheses on the Oakland Raiders' page, which is a completely different template and nowhere does it state that parentheses should be removed there also. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Ah ok, fair enough, thank you! SportsFan007 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NFC Championship page edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello I just wanted to clarify a few things. So Santa Clara and San Francisco don't count as the same because of the differences between city and location? Also, on the Detroit Lions, their win % for home NFC Championship games is .000, yet for the Seattle Seahawks, their win % for road ones are a dash... yet both are 0-0 never appearing. AstrosOverrated (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@AstrosOverrated: Good point about the Lions so I changed it back. Regarding Santa Clara and San Francisco, city and location are two different things. For example, at New York Islanders we list "New York City, New York" (despite them playing at Barclays Center), because the parameter is named "City", while at Brooklyn Nets we list "Brooklyn, New York" since the parameter is called "Location". There were many edit wars through the years at these pages so it was determined through discussions to list it that way. Getting back to the NFL issue, I do not really understand why the column is named "Location" at AFC/NFC Championship Game pages, while the same column is named "City" at List of Super Bowl champions page. In my opinion, it is best to ask about it at WT:NFL, because I cannot remember why it was decided to name it that way. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

All fair points Sabbatino. Thanks for your response and clarifying. AstrosOverrated (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brisbane Bullets colours

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, regarding the revert of the Brisbane Bullets colours, the logo on their main page is no longer their primary logo (see the club's website and their Facebook page for examples, though both are variants of the new logo). I am yet to update the logo on the main page itself, which has slight colour changes with the previous logo. dylan.ingleby (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dylan.ingleby: There is not indication that their logo has changed. It is most likely their secondary logo since the current logo can be found on Bullets' and NBL's pages, and it is also present on team's uniforms. The problem with social media and teams' websites is that many teams around the world tend to use other logos than their primary in some instances, so people tend to assume that there was a change. Since there was no press release about any change to the logo, which is the case, your assumptions are nothing more than WP:OR. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raiders Userbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silver is the main color because they are always referred to as the Silver and Blach, and Silver is mentioned first meaning silver is the primary color. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@SportsFan007: Nickname does not mean anything. What color is most used by the team (social media, merchandise, etc)? Black. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah ok, fair enough, over and out. SportsFan007 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What was the language and statehood of Grand Duchy.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi! You reverted in "Crimean Karaites" the names of two cities to the Polish transcription. Yes, there were two periods, when they were belonging to Poland, but also in other times to Ukraine/Ruthenia, GDL, Russia, Ausria-Hungary and now, they belong to Ukraine. You may be surprised, but the language of GDL, which is the time when The Lithuanian Karaites also settled in lands of modern Belarus and Ukraine, which were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - was, in fact not Polish. In official letters prevailed Latin, and in court - yes, Ruthenian. Until 1400 under Vitautas Polish elements were rather small. So, if we are talking about the beginnings of Karaites - there were no Lwów and Łuck, there were Львів/Leopolis and Лучеськ/Luсeskas. Since, I see no reason to go to much later Polish names (neither to Austrian or Russian). In the English article would be better to use English names of these cities: Lviv and Lutsk. If you have other ideas, please let me know. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mykola Swarnyk: I am aware of the languages, but there was no such thing as official language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania times. They used different languages in different locations (Ruthenian in the former Kievan Rus' lands, Polish in Polish-speaking areas, Latin – to communicate with Western Europe, etc). The reason why I reverted your changes was that you did not change all the cities' names. For example, you left Halicz, which is the Polish name, but changed both Lwów and Łuck to Lviv and Lutsk accordingly. In the past there were many problems regarding the names in the topics related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and most of the changes should be discussed to avoid edit wars. I am not against the changing of the cities' names but it should be done to all cities and not just the selected ones. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no rule to correct either all mistakes or non of them. I read, I see, I correct. Especially because I was born in Lutsk and grew up in Lviv. In Lutsk there is main historical attraction — the castle of Lubart who was a Ruthenian Prince, baptized as Dmytro in the Orthodox denomination etc. I am correcting these names again. Thanks. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mykola Swarnyk: Looks like you are here not to edit in collaboration but to impose your own views, which is clear with the case of Halych (it implies that you do not think that it is part of Ukraine). In addition, do not lecture me about the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because I am pretty sure I know more about the subject. And seeing in what manner you are communicating, I do not want to communicate with you until you get familiar with Wikipedia policies. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overlinking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What gave you the impression that it didn't apply to infoboxes? Is there a MoS page that I'm unaware of, because the linking subpage doesn't say anything in particular about infoboxes. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: There were many discussions in many places through the years where editors determined that infoboxes should have different treatment than prose regarding the MOS:OVERLINK policy. In addition, the policy should be applied on a case-by-case basis and it quite clearly says that "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked". The countries are relevant to the subject and the infobox is supposed to summarize the subject, which is why it is best to leave the links in the infobox at Thrash metal. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devils–Rangers rivalry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dude. The all-time record between NYR and NJ was sourced information. Look at reference #1. I also added a note saying that the record DID NOT include the Rangers' combined record against the KC Scouts and COL Rockies. Only the record since the fall of 1982 (when the teams became geographic rivals) should be included.

By the way, I've had it with you reverting my edits and trying to start edit wars with me. Ever since I created this account, you have policed my reversions on several articles. And after reading your talk page, it seems this is a habit you have with other users as well. Cut it out, bro. You're no more important than anyone else when it comes to improving Wiki articles. Jewel15 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jewel15: First of all, stop accusing me of "trying to start edit wars with you", which is a clear personal attack, because I have never encountered you before. You should also stop making things up about my editing, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Normal users come and ask what is what, and not just come here showing their hostility (like you). Secondly, you did not provide any sources about the series record. Thirdly, do not change the format from "W–L–T–OT" to "W–L–OT/T", because there is no consensus for such format. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
No consensus on the "W-L-OT/T" format? Oh, but yours is correct and mine is wrong. Cool, bud. Thanks for proving my point. Again, check reference 1 on the article. I made a note saying it didn't include the Rangers' record against the Devils' franchise prior to their move to the East Coast. Jewel15 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jewel15: Instead of discussing about how to improve the page, you are attacking me. That is a clear WP:BADFAITH case. After my reply to your not so civil message, I looked at the stats and saw that the NHL combines the records of relocated teams, which is why I then took time to look through the records and edited the Devils–Rangers rivalry page accordingly. If that does not satisfy you then nothing will since the only reason why you are here is to make insults. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussions aren't worth it with you. Because all you will do is quietly erase my edit and put on your Internet armor. "Look at me, I revert people's edits because they don't look right to me." Jewel15 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi! Blue-black-white never was flag of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, because On 8 May 1990 Estonian Supreme Soviet (which was the first democratically elected one since wwii) passed an act about National Symbols in which 1. Decided to end the usage of the name Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic and from this day on use the name Republic of Estonia 2. End the usage of Estonian SSR Flag, emblem and anthem as national symbols.

And on 7 August 1990 Supreme Council passed an act about state Flag and Coat of arms 1. adopt the flag and coat of arms used until august 1940 as official symbols of Republic of Estonia.

So Estonian SSR name ceased to exist on 8 May 1990, the country used the name Republic of Estonia, but was still part of USSR, until 20 August 1991. Such an overlap where Estonian SSR used Blue-black-white flag never existed. Flag of Estonia has been heavily edited and needs clean up. Klõps (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Klõps: Thanks for explanation. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem, it's confusing. Klõps (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REO Speedwagon Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Please explain why you removed the founding member references in the Band members section? When dong research, it allows a quick references to the founding members instead of having to read the Formation section. Glinman (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)GInman

@Glinman: I removed those notes, because that section is for listing all members of the band. In addition, reading the "Formation" section (or any other section for that matter) is what Wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedia and not some simple listings' website. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number retirement announcements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When they announce an upcoming number retirement, I make sure I add the source to prove it

Megacheez (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Megacheez: First of all, we do not add the number until it is officially retired. Secondly, no exact date has been announced on when Garnett's number retirement will take place and "2020–21 season" is a very vague definition. A note to person's and team's pages can be added, but not at List of National Basketball Association retired numbers. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC) – Sabbatino (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alice Cooper (band)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Sabbatino. My edit at the Alice Cooper (band) article was an accident—I was in a hurry forgot that there was another infobox in another section of the article (later in the article) covering the Spiders. I don't mind your correction at all, that's fine, but I do take issue with the WP:GWAR characterization. I've been here a long time, and have never engaged in Genre-warring in info-boxes, in fact infoboxes are pretty low on my radar of priorities—I focus more on content creation.

The additional infobox about the Spiders goes back to when the Spiders had their own article—the two articles later got merged. But, I do think it might now be a good idea for us to consider folding the two infoboxes together as one—under the title "Alice Cooper (band)". Other than the name change, the Spiders were the exact same band—they even had the same membership, and there were no interruptions in their chronology between 1964 and 1974. It might be best to present the story more as a contiguous whole rather than two stories stitched together. My mind has changed on this. I actually created the separate article about the Spiders years ago (when I was a new editor), but I now think to is better to present the history of the band as a unified whole. I know that the Super Duper Alice Cooper documentary presents the years as the Spiders as integral, even fundamental in the story of Alice Cooper, so having one box in the article may work best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: I did not mean to offend you, but the WP:GWAR does not mean that you are a genre warrior. It is simply there to let editors know that inclusion of supposed genres should be discussed. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. No problem. By the way, how do you feel about the idea of merging the two infoboxes into one under the "Alice Cooper (band)" banner? I think that would be more in keeping with the steady continuity of the band's history between 1964-1974. When I originally created the old separate article for the Spiders years ago, I had not yet seen the Super Duper documentary. But, the documentary (which is largely in synch with Cooper's perspective) stresses the continuity of the band's whole history and even views the Spiders years as perhaps the most fundamental to everything Alice Cooper (both as a band and later individually) became. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Garagepunk66: This is a question that should better be asked at Talk:Alice Cooper (band) since other editors will be able to see it. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
True, that's a good idea. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2019–20 NBA season change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I made an edit to 2019–20 NBA season right after somebody else vandalized it. I think you have to undo my edit to undo the one right before it. All I changed was a single punctuation mark, so redoing my edit is no big deal. Chris3145 (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris3145: If you take a better look then you would see that your edit "fixed" the punctuation in a vandalism. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I fixed the punctuation in the non-vandalized article, but there was an edit conflict. I let the other edit go through then redid my fix. It wasn't until after I published that I saw the other edit (which affected parts of the sentence I was editing) was vandalism. I have re-applied the punctuation change to the non-vandalized article.Chris3145 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why'd you remove doom metal from those Sabbath albums

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Loudwire not reliable enough? I’m not upset just genuinely asking Henoryry (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Henoryry: It is not about the reliability of Loudwire. There were many problems in the past with IP editors (and not only them) adding whatever genres they want so we usually revert any genre addition unless it is discussed on article's talk page. In addition, you should read WP:GWAR, which will give you a better understanding. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well damn, thanks for sending me that. As much as I hate to admit it I think I am, in fact, a genre warrior. But I will definitely discuss it on the talk page in the future and use sources (and I definitely won’t start edit wars) Henoryry (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Henoryry: It does not necessarily mean that you are a genre warrior. That is just the page, which best addresses the genre additions/removals. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Logo quality update requests for Los Angeles NFL teams

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Sabbatino. I noticed you are well versed in upgrading the quality of NFL logos, so I have a request to ask. Let's get the stacked wordmark royal blue version I uploaded to File:LA Rams wordmark.svg (it's an official variant and the only one that can be used against a white/transparent background like wikipedia. The sol yellow version would be too hard to see with a white background for obvious reasons.) and have the quality of it upscaled and moved to File:Los Angeles Rams wordmark.svg.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

-->

@GalaxyFighter55: I will see what I can do when I have more time. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@GalaxyFighter55: Looks like other editor updated the wordmark. Meanwhile, I updated the Chargers' logo. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
What's "proper" about this version? This version came directly from the Chargers' website (see here). Corky 07:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: Please watch your tone, because this is not the first time that you are being rude for no apparent reason. No new upload was shown when I uploaded the logo. In addition, after taking a look at the version that you uploaded it looks like the color codes were wrong so it is still an update. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I've found a better quality version (https://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/6446/full/5909_los_angeles__chargers-wordmark-2020.png) of the Los Angeles Chargers wordmark that can be turned into a vector SVG.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55: I will see what I can do. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Style cleanup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would you have an opinion about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Capitalization_in_infobox_of_player_positions? I see that you also cleaned up some of that editor's style edits, and see their comment here. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I saw the editor's rude comment. Should we assume that it is some old editor who was blocked and has now came back with a new account? Because it is rather stranger that someone completely new would know so much about Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Unless you have evidence of who is the sockmaster, it's not worth the time. I just try to steer people in the right direction. If they exhaust AGF and don't constructively engage with others, it won't be long before an ANI case builds.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rudy Gobert intro revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I am wondering why you removed my COVID-19 mention from the Rudy Gobert article's intro. The reason why I placed it there initially is because his COVID-19 diagnosis is, needless to say, an important part of his life, as well as to the history of the NBA (side note: I am glad he has been cleared). The NBA season was suspended in reaction to his diagnosis, before anyone else's in the NBA world was known, and I don't have to explain how huge a deal the season suspension is.

I know that Wikipedia is not a news site per se, but his Covid-19 diagnosis had a direct and indirect impact on multiple professional sports leagues, and was felt globally; such will be regarded as true in the historic rendering of Covid-19's impact on the sports world. Therefore, while I don't fully understand why you took my addition to the intro away, I would like a fuller appreciation of your reasoning that is contrary to mine, if possible.

Cheers.

Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mungo Kitsch: It does not matter if he was the first to test positive for COVID-19. Mentioning it in the lead makes an impression that he will be best known for that, which is not. In addition, it is WP:RECENTISM at this point. In about one year from now it might be (if at all) worth a mention but not now. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like fine logic to me. I appreciate your input. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hard dotted Lithuanian accented "i".

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed in other pages regarding this language the "i" with the pitch accent marks are soft dotted. In the "Lithuanian language" page, these accented "i" retain their dots and are hard dotted. I changed all instances to the counterpart that replaces the tittle since I find that totally unnecessary.

Anyways, I bet the rarity of these letters means there are no dedicated typeblocks for these characters, so the press relies on putting the accent on top of the "i" hence preserving the dot. This also happened in Vietnamese, where "ỉ" (which is far more common) retains its tittle while the other variants with an accent above does not, maybe because the hook above is novel at that time. Is there an official rule regarding the treatment of the tittle when adding the pitch accent of an "i"? --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@--MULLIGANACEOUS--: The dot, macron or caron above the letters are retained when the accent symbol is present. That is the practice in Lithuanian language. You can find examples at Lithuanian accentuation. Which pages about the Lithuanian language list it differently? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of them. Including Lithuanian Orthography and Wiktionary. --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, where is the source of the official dot-retaining rule (besides Unicode) upon accenting an "i"?

There is no dotless "i" in Lithuanian so ì, í, ĩ, and their ogonek counterparts are completely correct as well. --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@--MULLIGANACEOUS--: In that case, both Lithuanian Orthography and Wiktionary are wrong. There is a Lithuanian accentuation page about that, but it also shows them incorrectly. Here is one of the books about the rule – a dot above the lower case "i" and "j" must by retained.
Quote from the book: "Lietuviškos kirčuotos mažosios raidės "i", "į" bei "j" turi vieną ypatumą, susijusį su grafiniu vaizdu, t. y. simboliu. Vakarų Europos kalbose raidė "i" su kairiniu kirčiu ir kitais kirčiais vaizduojama be taško, o dabartinės lietuvių kalbos taisyklės reikalauja tašką išlaikyti, plg.:
  • "ì" Vakarų Europos kalbose;
  • "ı̇̀" lietuvių kalboje."
Translation: "Lithuanian accented lowercase letters "i", "į" and "j" have one feature related to the graphic image, which is the symbol above the letters. In Western European languages, the letter "i" with the left accent and other accents is depicted without a dot, while the current Lithuanian language rules require the dot to be retained, for example:
  • "ì" in Western European languages;
  • "ı̇̀" in Lithuanian language."
And here is a proposal from 2011, which says the same thing – "There is another problem with small letter "i" (and "i with ogonek" and "j"). Lithuanian letter "i" is with a dot above. All accented forms of "i" should be also with a dot (see samples in 2.4)." However, I am not sure about this proposal's fate.
There is also a book (or one of the books if we were to be precise) called "Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos kirčiavimo žinynas" about the rules of Lithuanian accentuation but the book is not available online. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite surprised that some sources state that the hard-dotted accented "i" is the correct way to write such an uncommon letter. Maybe because "i" already has a dot and is to "ė" and not to "e". There is no dotless counterpart of "i", in which Turkish makes a clear difference.

I am wondering, how closely is this hard-dotting rule followed? In my opinion

  • I do not believe that retaining the dot upon adding a tone accent on an "i" or "į" is common, instead the soft-dotted accented "i" is overwhelmingly dominant.
  • Fonts are free to hard-dot or soft-dot all accented "i" though, but the soft-dotted version is overwhelmingly displayed.
  • The technical subtleties of encoding a hard-dotted accented "i" is not worth the effort. As I checked the files you referred, they are very prone to display problems as in the nature of most characters requiring combining accents.
  • I bet hard-dotting the "i" comes from the uncommon occurrences of accented "i" or "į"; there is no special typeblock for these characters and the accent is simply placed directly on the already dotted letter, hence hard-dotting it.

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@--MULLIGANACEOUS--: You clearly have no knowledge of Lithuanian language so your fixation about the dot is silly. The dot is ALWAYS retained in Lithuanian language. And do not mention Turkish or any other language, because they have different rules. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Invalid scans?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I've noticed of your reversions of my edits on 1991 NBA finals and Chicago Bulls, where you summarized "a scan from a magazine is not a proper image". That means that scanned images are not suitable for being used on this project? I don't think so.

Moreover, I've never heard of a single edit reverted because of that, so your "reasons" to override my changes seems to be inaccurate, unless they are based on a manual of style that I don't know yet. Otherwise, I think it should be discussed in other place to hear feedback from other users that help me to clarify your assertions. - Fma12 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fma12: First of all, nowhere did I say "invalid". Secondly, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Editing images quiet clearly states that a scanned image should not have any artifacts. The scans that you uploaded have artifacts, which is the text on the image. The scans should not be used unless you crop the text from them. And yes, you should probably ask about this at WT:IMAGES or WT:Manual of Style/Images. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colby Cave nationality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there. I started a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § MOS:OVERLINK: nationality in bio lead sentence. I didn't specifically mention you there, as it's not my intention to single you out. Your input there is welcome.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stu Aberdeen AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would you mind re-looking at your vote in this AFD? I have added several sources from newspapers.com (not accessible via Google search) and think it meets GNG. Obviously, vote your conscience, there is just now additional info to consider. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kerry Kittles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You recently reverted and deleted much of the Kerry Kittles page. That's a shame because it was all accurate.

One thing that was actually slanderous was a reference by a Hoya website and you left that up.

I'll try to fix all this with as many cites as possible but the way it was done makes me think you are a bot and not a person as the info about his career was mostly common knowledge for fans of his teams.

Let me know what you need to be improved so this doesn't happen again.

Thanks. -MVicious

@MVicious4: First of all, you do not own the page so you have no business telling anybody how to edit. Secondly, I did not look through the sources so do not accuse me of any wrongdoings. In addition, you did not assume good faith and also made a personal attack by calling me a bot. And the content on the page has nothing to do with "common knowledge for fans of his teams", because everything must be sourced. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sabbatino,
As for the edits.. I wasn't trying to tell you how to edit. Most of that info was already on the page and not done by me so I assume the got it from the listed references.. so I figured it would not need deleting.
That said..I didn't mean anything about the bot comment.. sorry. I really didn't know better. I'm totally new to this and figured there might be some automatic software thing that handles so much info for what I felt was fairly mundane stuff. That's why I didn't assume good faith. It wasn't personal at all. I'm glad you're not a bot.. kinda funny no? Anyway.. I apologize for any ill feelings and my ignorance. Good news is I've learned to cite now and will try to make improved updates.
Thanks for hopefully having patience with the new guy. Hope this note finds you well. - MVicious
@MVicious4: None taken. I was not aware that you were new here. Bots usually do minor edits like adding/removing categories, fixing references and other things. You can read about them at WP:BOTS. In addition, always remember to sign your messages on talk pages (WP:SIGNATURE). You should also WP:INDENT indent your messages for easier communication. And last but no least it would help if you read WP:5P, which would give a better understanding about how things work here. There is a Manual of Style on how to handle certain things and most of the policies/guidelines can be found at WP:POLICYLIST. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sabbatino Thanks for the info. Obviously I don't know how to do some things yet.lol I'll look into that and hopefully remember as I don't plan on doing too much more editing. Just saw a couple things on some pages I thought I could improve is all. Thanks again. MVicious4 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)MVicious

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sam Darnold page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May I ask why Sam Darnold's career statistics do not use coloring, and on the same note, why their display differs greatly from many other quarterbacks (including Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, and Baker Mayfield)? And on that note, why Darnold's page has not been standardized? The Kip (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Kip: All of the mentioned pages should not include colors either. I am fixing the issues but there are too many pages for me to do it alone. Coloring them creates MOS:ACCESS problems and there was never any consensus to use the coloring. Editors probably do not care so there is nobody fixing the issues. And the appearance of the tables is different information-wise, because nobody converting them to Template:NFL QB stats start, which should be used. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Megadeth - So Far, So Good... So What!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why did you revert my changes? It says "all songs written and composed by Dave Mustaine, except where noted", therefore therw is no need to put Mustaine's name when only he wrote the music/lyrics. All Megadeth's track listings are written like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotterRequiem (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@MotterRequiem: The "All songs written and composed by Dave Mustaine, except where noted." statement applies to songs that were composed entirely by Mustaine. If either lyrics or music were composed by different people then we list it. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: No, the statement does not. It applies to any music or lyrics as long as it was written entirely by Mustaine. Check any other album from Megadeth, or even other bands, and you will see that is written the way I am saying.
@MotterRequiem: Everything is taken from the album's liner notes and it is evident that you do not have a copy of the album in any format. It is clearly noted which songs were written entirely by Mustaine. I advise you to read WP:V, WP:AGF and other policies/guidelines if you want to continue editing. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Rvt sock"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do you mean with this revert/statement ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_NBA_draft&action=history SmooveMike (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC) I took the positions from the original player article on wikipedia and/or basketball-reference.com. they are correct SmooveMike (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Everybody knows you’re User:Urgal, “Mike.” You edit the same articles in exactly the same way. Rikster2 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Why exactly are getting edits reverted though? Its not like they're wrong SmooveMike (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You are a blocked user. You can’t edit and the answer isn’t to set up a new account - It’s called wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Your block was only 72 hours so I’m not sure why you chose this route. I reverted your edit because you actually did remove a position from a player in conflict with how their current team lists them. That edit WAS wrong (and you knew that because you were on the discussion at WP:NBA). Rikster2 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The edit wasnt wrong as i changed the primary position up. I dont think its necessary to list a random secondary position if the player barely plays it. But i corrected it now according to the rules if that makes you happy SmooveMike (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it was wrong. You removed a position. I reverted the edit. Then you changed the order of the two positions, which is fine. It’s not just me being happy, the team dictates position more than basketball-reference, Urgal. Rikster2 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rikster2: I assumed that it was someone else's sockpuppet (that editor is popping up once a week with a new sockpuppet account) and was not aware of Urgal's block. But thanks for revealing the true master of this account. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to have posted on your Talk page. I was looking at his previous edits and it led me here. Rikster2 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islanders home arena

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I saw that you edited the New York Islanders article to reflect that Nassau Coliseum is now their sole home arena. While I know this is correct, since Bettman announced that the NHL regular season is over, I just want to make sure that it is OK to edit further articles. For example, List of National Hockey League arenas still lists Barclays Center as one of the Islanders' arenas. I would be happy to help and go through these articles.

Also, it might be more accurate now to change the lead sentence in the New York Islanders article from "based in the New York metropolitan area" to "based in Uniondale, New York."Antenn050 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Antenn050: You are right. I completely forgot to make changes to the lead and that page about NHL arenas. I will do the changes to those two. What are the other pages that need editing? – Sabbatino (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ITN recognition for Wes Unseld

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 3 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Wes Unseld, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New logo/colors for the Buffalo Sabres

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Sabbatino (talk), I was wondering if you would please update File:Buffalo Sabres Logo.svg? My source for the updated logo is found at NHL.com/Sabres. For the record, the HTML color codes for the new logo are  #003087  (royal blue) &  #FFB81C  (gold). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: I cannot do it at this time, because I am busy with work-related projects. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: OK, I understand. I will ask another editor to see if they could or would take the time to update File:Buffalo Sabres Logo.svg with the accurate HTML color codes. @Corkythehornetfan: Do you have the time or a laptop to update the logo? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. My laptop crashed on me a few weeks ago. Sorry. Corky 17:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: OK, I understand. Is there any other editor knowledgeable or willing to please update File:Buffalo Sabres Logo.svg? If so, that would be greatly appreciated. I would try to do it myself, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do it. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Charlesaaronthompson: See Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. They can help you there. Corky 03:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Charlesaaronthompson: I finally found free time and uploaded the new logo. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: OK, thank you so very much! I greatly appreciate it! Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Bigger number is listed first"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You said so here. It depends on some things, seems like for example language. For example in Finnish, home team's number is listed before guest team's. If we for example have the match between Slovakia and Germany so, that Slovakia is the host and the home team:

  • if Slovakia (home team) wins, bigger number is listed first. (Slovakia defeated Germany 5–3. Germany lost to Slovakia 5–3.)
  • if Germany (guest team) wins, smaller number in listed first. (Germany defeated Slovakia 3–5. Slovakia lost to Germany 3–5.)

Same thing with the Finnish ice hockey league, "SM-liiga", where the host city is the home team. Let us take Rauman Lukko from Rauma and Porin Ässät from Pori as examples with Lukko as host and home team. Then Lukko's number is listed first:

  • if Lukko (home team) wins, bigger number is listed first. (Lukko defeated Ässät 5–3. Ässät lost to Lukko 5–3.)
  • if Ässät (guest team) wins, smaller number is listed first. (Ässät defeated Lukko 3–5. Lukko lost to Ässät 3–5.)

But this is Finnish way to list numbers. Is that "bigger first" always in English style or does it depend on some things?--176.93.171.2 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is the English style and since this is an English Wikipedia that means that it should use this style. There is a reason why Wikipedia has its website in many languages. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aistis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I saw that you undid my 'aistis' edit in Balts eiki. Why? You stste that it's just a theory, but I constantly hear people saying `aisčiai` being `baltai` synonym. Even our history teacher said same thing. And even people either say `When were aisčiai been first mentioned?` or `When were Balts first mentioned?` and both of them have the same answer.

You can also check these: http://zodynai.igloro.info/sinonimai/ais%C4%8Diai/ https://lt.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/S%C4%85ra%C5%A1as:Sinonimai/lt/baltai/dkt https://www.lietuviuzodynas.lt/sinonimai/Baltai

And these pages say that synonym of aisčiai is baltai. That's why I added `aisčiai` in Balts wikipedia page. I don't know what you were trying to day by saying `that's just a theory`. IdkGoodName (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@IdkGoodName: Because that is just a theory. There is a separate page for aisčiai – Aesti. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
But aesti is not aisčiai. As I have said and sources say, aisčiai is synonym of word baltai. IdkGoodName (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@IdkGoodName: Showing random sources does not mean anything. Show some scientific articles about it and then we can discuss it. In addition, Aesti links to Aisčiai. So yes, it is very much the same thing. I will also add that aisčiai was never a nation. Tacitus just used the name aisčiai for people who lived on the southeastern coast of the Baltic Sea so they can either be Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians or even Prussians. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kenny Wooten

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The transaction was announced by the NBA via their transaction wire and he is listed in the Rockets’ roster. That is official, doesn’t need a press release in that case Rikster2 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rikster2: What is the link to the NBA's transactions' page? I cannot seem to find it after the NBA changed the design of its website. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the one I use. There are a couple links that don't work floating out there too. Not sure why. Rikster2 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rikster2: Thanks! A lot of webpages do not work inside the NBA website. It looks like they rushed with the new website design. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cavs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to clear the air:

I don't appreciate you calling my edits "disruptive", as that clearly wasn't the intent.

All I wanted to do was highlight the championship season (and what's wrong with adding a little color to a boring chart?), and make a note about why the 2019-2020 season was cut short.

A disruptive edit is one with an obvious intent just to cause trouble, and my edits do not fit that particular bill.

It's not worth the trouble to go back and forth, so I'll leave it be, but don't just willy-nilly throw out terms like "disruptive edits" when you know that wasn't what I was trying to do.

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You were reverted three times so yes, your edits were disruptive, because you did not engage in a discussion until the warning. The color to highlight the championship season in the "Season-by-season record" table is not needed, because adding the color would require an accessible symbol matched to a legend. Bolding the championship row is the most simple option for that (and it is used in many pages). Moving on to the note next to the 2019–20 season – note is not needed, because it does break the table's formatting. There are at least two other pages that would explain the length of the season – 2019–20 NBA season and 2019–20 Cleveland Cavaliers season. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You and I have a very different definition of disruptive. Disruptive is putting in nonsense/vulgarity/insults/personal cheap shots/etc. I did no such thing. Disruptive does not mean simply changing something in an article for an articulated reason. Looks to me like because I didn't leave it your way, to want to throw around terms like "disruptive". Vjmlhds (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NBA free agents on rosters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There hasn’t ever been a consensus or even a convention to keep free agents on rosters once the free agency period starts - these players aren’t on those rosters unless they re-sign. I usually wait a while to remove them so the early free agent signings happen since a number of players re-sign, but we are a week and a half into free agency and teams are signing new players, etc. it doesn’t make sense to have a roster showing 25 players, some of whom are part of last year and some of whom are new for 2020-21. Besides, the official rosters often don’t get cleaned up by teams until right before the season starts - numbers are wrong, officially signed players are missing - we have probably a half dozen players still showing on team pages who have already started seasons in Europe for example. Rikster2 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Nor has there ever been a consensus to remove free agents as soon as free agency starts. I do understand your concern, but why remove it if they could get re-signed? In addition, we wait until a team officially announces the transaction so it is easier to keep the free agent on the former team's roster template until the transaction is announced. And another thing, I have always had my focus on the Nets and Knicks, and both of these teams are quick to remove free agents who are most likely let go (for example, the Nets – November 20 and November 21). – Sabbatino (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:NBA Game

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed you updated the template to accommodate the change in URLs for box scores. Wondering though if you think it's worth removing the need for team abbreviations from the id parameter because I have found that as long as the numbers are all correct, assuming no other part of the URL is wrong, it will link to the game.

For example, all of these links send you to the league's regular season opening game:

Just thought I'd run it by you. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tampabay721: Thanks for reaching out. I do not see a reason to force someone on using team abbreviations if the template points to the correct game by listing the game code only. In fact, I asked another editor to update the template, but I did not get an answer so I experimented with it myself and succeeded. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sorry, what was the possible need for this? Rusted AutoParts 08:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: There is nothing about being a Stanley Cup champion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/NHL season pages format#Debuts and Last Games. In addition, I thought you were not going edit these sections anymore (you stated that yourself in the past)? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I meant the remark about not filling in the reference, the Stanley cup thing isn’t my concern. I honestly forgot about that whole to-do. If that’s the practice that’s the practice, I’d just seen it on Daley’s so I was mirroring that. Rusted AutoParts 09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: Now I could not possibly understand what you wanted from me due to your "very informative" message, did I? You added a WP:BURL so you did not mirror Daley's entry, because mirroring would mean that you filled in the reference. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
When I said mirror I meant “oh Daley has Stanley cups in his entry, I’ll add Steens to be consistent”. And I mean, if someone asks “what was the possible need for this?” and links an edit summary that says “because someone is incapable of doing that”, I feel it’s evident what I’m indicating. I wouldn’t be taking offence to the content removal per a cited consensus. I really don’t want this being anything needlessly antagonistic, I just didn’t understand the passive aggressive remark, if someone walks up to me and randomly spits in my coffee I’m gonna ask why that was. By the way, It’s not like I’m “not capable”, if I’ve got the time to do a full reference, I fill it. Just couldn’t at that moment.
If there’s any lingering resentments from our interaction four years ago then I want to quash that right now. I don’t want my Wikipedia experience going forward to have harboured bad feelings with editors. I’m sorry for my end of that, and hopefully going forward we can collaborate amicably. Rusted AutoParts 10:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts: In my opinion, if you have time to make an edit then you also have time to fill the reference. And I am not really concerned about our past interactions nor do I have any bad feelings towards you, but always try to do everything at once, because it is frustrating when other editors have to come and finish the work. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbaio/Archive_2020&oldid=1149001544"