Undid revision 682697932 by Tony1 (talk) When someone says don't post on their talk page, posting a response to get in the last word is real mature. Don't post again. |
→Oruç Reis: new section |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
:Sorry, but it's called consensus, and it governs here. You'd do better to understand it if you'd realize that MOS talk pages do not actually represent widespread consensus, as they're dominated by a handful of self-important types who'd rather argue over trivia (or rather make pronouncements) than actually work with other editors on actual articles like a real WikiProject. When <s>hundreds</s> thousands of pages have a common feature, that's consensus. Edit warring because it offends your personal aesthetics can only provoke one appropriate reaction: tough shit, Tony. You may not agree with it, but consensus is against you, and no, it's not going to change just because you whine about it and insult essentially every other editor who's ever edited the Devils article (including the FA reviewers) with a petulant edit summary. And unilaterally moving pages you've never edited before without fulfilling [[WP:BEFORE]] is just bad form. But you never care, because you believe you're always right. |
:Sorry, but it's called consensus, and it governs here. You'd do better to understand it if you'd realize that MOS talk pages do not actually represent widespread consensus, as they're dominated by a handful of self-important types who'd rather argue over trivia (or rather make pronouncements) than actually work with other editors on actual articles like a real WikiProject. When <s>hundreds</s> thousands of pages have a common feature, that's consensus. Edit warring because it offends your personal aesthetics can only provoke one appropriate reaction: tough shit, Tony. You may not agree with it, but consensus is against you, and no, it's not going to change just because you whine about it and insult essentially every other editor who's ever edited the Devils article (including the FA reviewers) with a petulant edit summary. And unilaterally moving pages you've never edited before without fulfilling [[WP:BEFORE]] is just bad form. But you never care, because you believe you're always right. |
||
:Most importantly, I've also never resorted to uncivil talk page posts telling others they should just leave. Who's the bully again? Here's an idea, never post on my talk page again. You contribute nothing to civil discourse because you will never change your conclusions, even if new evidence is presented. And resorting to pathetic attempts at intimidation show the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. That alone tells me I should probably haul you off to some notice board or another, but frankly you're just not worth it. Good day. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad#top|talk]]) 12:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
:Most importantly, I've also never resorted to uncivil talk page posts telling others they should just leave. Who's the bully again? Here's an idea, never post on my talk page again. You contribute nothing to civil discourse because you will never change your conclusions, even if new evidence is presented. And resorting to pathetic attempts at intimidation show the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. That alone tells me I should probably haul you off to some notice board or another, but frankly you're just not worth it. Good day. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad#top|talk]]) 12:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Oruç Reis == |
|||
Hi, i just cant understand why you removed my edit in [[Oruç Reis]] page while i find its '''not neutral''' to write "pirate" about someone can be successful hero in Ottoman Empire .. so i wirte "Mujahed" to make it clear --[[User:Nayzaka|Nayzaka]] ([[User talk:Nayzaka|talk]]) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:00, 29 September 2015
New comments, questions and concerns go on the bottom of this page. Please use the "New section" tab above if you have a new topic! if you post here I will respond here; other interested parties may want to follow the conversation, and it's rude to force them to jump back and forth.
Archives: 2004–2009, 2010, January–June 2011, July–December 2011, January–June 2012, July–December 2012, January–June 2013, July–December 2013, January–June 2014, July–December 2014, January–June 2015
Talk-page message
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azeroth (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) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrousel (booklet), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HC (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) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What is needed for a consensus, according to you?
How do you mean when you write "No consensus for merge after 7+ months", when the two users who have said anything about it at Talk:Boilersuit both wanted the merge? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- More a case that no one acted on it for 7 months. It was a stale tag, either way. There comes a point where if someone proposes a merge, and there's no objection, then they should actually perform the merge. Just tagging it and expecting someone else to actually do the work is rude. So the tag was stale, and therefore removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then that is what you should have said. That opinion I can understand, even if I don't really agree. Also, there are merge templates around which are much older than this. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I misstated my reasons in my edit summary, defaulting to a boilerplate message I've used before. That was my mistake. But the underlying opinion remains. If someone tags a page for a merge, and no one objects, then that person shouldn't just expect someone else to do the work. oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then that is what you should have said. That opinion I can understand, even if I don't really agree. Also, there are merge templates around which are much older than this. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Crocodile attack Madagascar entry removed
Hi, I saw you removed my entry about the Madagascar's deaths on the crocodile attack page. You wrote "not notable, routine source". Honestly, I don't understand why it's less notable than many other attacks listed in the same section. Many sources linked to other entries do not even described the attacks with more than one or two sentences, so it seems to me it's also routine coverage. Why three people's deaths in the same river in the span of three days covered by several regional newspapers would not be notable? It's not because it does not appear in a big western newspaper that it is not notable I think. So I'll be glad to have more information about your decision to revoke my addition. Thanks, --Priyankee (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because the attacks were merely coincidental; they weren't connected to each other by anything other than just happening to be close in location and date. Otherwise they were just the sort of attack that happens in crocodile infested waters multiple times a year. Heck, the victims weren't even named. It's pretty much the definition of routine coverage, sadly. Some of the other entire probably should be trimmed, too. The whole section is too weighted towards more recent events, anyway. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Airline Hub
Hello, thanks for letting me know that hub was not equal to headquarters! This type of edit war I had been involved in last month, the user told me that hub meant headquarters. So that's why I thought that, thanks for letting me know! But I removed Vueling as it has a base at Amsterdam and is not a spoke carrier. RMS52 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. Glad to help. The editor or could have saved us all a lot of trouble if they just added the link. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North American Soccer League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent New York Red Bulls revert
When reverting vandalism, be sure to warn the individual that their behaviour is not appropriate. It makes it easier to get a block if it continues. I have seen too many closures for insufficient warnings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was in the middle of leaving the warning when you did. Actually got an edit conflict. Considering I went straight to the vandal's talk page as soon as my revert was saved, you didn't exactly give me enough time to leave the warning. (Also, I tend to jump to level two warnings for obvious malicious vandalism, such as this one). oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Gluten-free whisky
The Celiac Support Association advises that some celiacs react to whisky, for reasons explained here: http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenfreefoodshoppin1/f/Is-Whiskey-Gluten-Free.htm Your assertion that "all whiskey is gluten-free" is debatable for perfectly good scientific reasons. I don't agree that that it's "pointless puffery" to add a reference to pure buckwheat whisky as an incontrovertably gluten-free alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammbeck (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Gluten is plain and simply too heavy to be carried by the vapors in distillation. Any other statement is just bad science. If any celiacs have issues with whiskey it's likely due to a sympathetic allergy to cogeners that carry over from the malted barley (or wheat for wheated bourbons). But it's not the actual presence of gluten. Gluten does not enter into the spirit itself, and remains with the spent mash.
- Regardless, I also had big issues with the phrasing. Too promotional. Read like an advertising pitch, frankly, not a dispassionate description. So at the very least a re-phrasing is needed. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input and advice. I have re-phrased and removed any explicit link between gluten and any allergic response to whisky. Tammbeck (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Eastern wolf
Thanks for your suggestion to keep the taxonomic/genetic controversy in the main section on the eastern wolf. Please note that the controversy is now settled with COSEWIC changing the status to a Threatened independent species, C. lycaon. The two journal reviews on the red wolf that you removed are highly pertinent to the eastern wolf as they note that they may be conspecific - however, I have rephrased and shortened my previous discussion on this to focus more on the eastern wolf as an independent species. Both reviews discuss the Algonquin Provincial Park eastern wolves not just red wolves. Schmiebel (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Fox Chase Line
I know you've been active on Fox Chase Line for a long time. Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) has been banned for sockpuppetry and there's now a major copyright infringement investigation underway at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. My initial spot checks revealed that much of what he added was copied verbatim from other sources (the first two major diffs I checked, [1], [2], are word-for-word). The simplest approach would be roll back the entire article prior to his involvement on the presumption that everything he added is a copyright violation, but I appreciate how disruptive that would be. The alternative is to attempt to identify and remove all text that he originally added which is still a copyright violation. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not surprised by any of it. I always suspected Tomatosoup97 was a sock, but I find it completely laughably incompetent that he'd respond to a warning about sock puppetry with his new block-evading sock. What a maroon. Frankly, he's been POV-pushing for so long, I'm glad he's gone. I'm also not surprised he turned out to be a plagiarist. Do what you see fit. I'll take a look as it goes. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Traveling team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Can-Am League (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) 12:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
IGF
Thanks for the copyedit. Been up all night. Couldn't catch mistakes anymore.--WillC 13:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Been there. Editing while falling asleep is just as bad as editing while drunk. Wait, that's driving. Nevermind. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was at work. Used it as a distraction from doing school work. Plus it was one of that articles I had left to expand for my topic. I wanted it finished.--WillC 13:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Been there too. That bit about the tired editing was supposed to be a joke. Just not a very good one. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I caught it, amusing. Too tired to react though.--WillC 13:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, get some sleep! Wikipedia can wait. WP:NODEADLINE and all that. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I caught it, amusing. Too tired to react though.--WillC 13:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Been there too. That bit about the tired editing was supposed to be a joke. Just not a very good one. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was at work. Used it as a distraction from doing school work. Plus it was one of that articles I had left to expand for my topic. I wanted it finished.--WillC 13:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Gin Article - New Amsterdam Gin
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that it was a mistake to delete the article in question, and this product is notable in commerce. If you can get that fixed, we should return the product to the notable listing, and I support that 100%. Until then, using the existence of an article is the most objective means of maintaining order for the list, and likewise objectively prevents the list from becoming a posterboard of advertisements. The tradeoff is we place decisions of notability within the discretion of the moderators, which while imperfect, preserves objectivity.Vapeur (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't entirely disagree. I've been gathering some sources for a new article, but a lot of Internet material on spirits is blog-type reviews, which are of marginal usefulness. So it might be a few days, but I'll try to get a stub together. As you say, the notability of the product is the standard for whether or not to have an article, not the article quality, which is why I think deletion was a mistake, and would have !voted against it had I known it was at AFD. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
WWE Divas Champions page
You need to stop trying for AJ underneath and modify the tables. I do not understand why you taste so bad and can't even leave a beautiful and organized page alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunteWinchester123 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The person who set the record should be pictured first. It's the only logical organization. Secondly, the table does not need the changes a you think it should have. No other article on a WWE title has them, and they don't work properly for sortable tables. Thirdly, your incredibly poor spelling, grammar and vocabulary, along with your abusively insulting edit summaries, tell me you should not be editing anything on the English Wikipedia at all, as you lack the competence to do such. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care. You can't see thay you way is ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunteWinchester123 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, you're way is ugly. And stupid. Like really idiotic. As is the crap writing you try to pass off as English. Leave this page and never come back. oknazevad (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Jersey Devils may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- were based at the [[Meadowlands Sports Complex]] in [[East Rutherford, New Jersey|East Rutherford]]]] and played their home games at [[Izod Center|Brendan Byrne Arena]] (later renamed to Continental
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Muppets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Eagle's Nest (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) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
TAFI
I have nominated several articles at TAFI. Some of them could need one more input and review to reach its three-threshold. If you find time for it please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Ignorant, arrogant, nasty, and rude
You count very high on my list of unpleasant, counterproductive, bullying editors.
You would do everyone a favour if you left. Now. Tony (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ironically, I consider you one of the most arrogant prima donnas around this place. I'm sorry no one else seems to agree with bowing down to your overbearing sense of self importance and hubris. You like to apply formulaic one-size fits all "solutions" that try to reduce editing Wikipedia to a automated task that only agrees with you.
- Sorry, but it's called consensus, and it governs here. You'd do better to understand it if you'd realize that MOS talk pages do not actually represent widespread consensus, as they're dominated by a handful of self-important types who'd rather argue over trivia (or rather make pronouncements) than actually work with other editors on actual articles like a real WikiProject. When
hundredsthousands of pages have a common feature, that's consensus. Edit warring because it offends your personal aesthetics can only provoke one appropriate reaction: tough shit, Tony. You may not agree with it, but consensus is against you, and no, it's not going to change just because you whine about it and insult essentially every other editor who's ever edited the Devils article (including the FA reviewers) with a petulant edit summary. And unilaterally moving pages you've never edited before without fulfilling WP:BEFORE is just bad form. But you never care, because you believe you're always right. - Most importantly, I've also never resorted to uncivil talk page posts telling others they should just leave. Who's the bully again? Here's an idea, never post on my talk page again. You contribute nothing to civil discourse because you will never change your conclusions, even if new evidence is presented. And resorting to pathetic attempts at intimidation show the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. That alone tells me I should probably haul you off to some notice board or another, but frankly you're just not worth it. Good day. oknazevad (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oruç Reis
Hi, i just cant understand why you removed my edit in Oruç Reis page while i find its not neutral to write "pirate" about someone can be successful hero in Ottoman Empire .. so i wirte "Mujahed" to make it clear --Nayzaka (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)