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. Similarly, if I post to your talk page, please respond there. Don't bother with talkback templates, I watchlist all pages as needed.

Atari Panther Image[edit]

Contributor Sketch is based on same diagram that the 3D model is based on, it is not 'properly historical'. Undid your revision to the Panther article. If you'd like to discuss, the talk page has links to all the 3D models that were created based on the same diagram the 'contributor sketch' was. Please do not revert back to the outdated sketch again. Thanks. TheEmperorAnt (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sketch looks like it's an obvious sketch. The 3D model looks too much like it was a physical prototype. The article has had enough issues with fake info, even if the model is based on the same diagram as the sketch, it contains many assumptions (like color scheme) that extrapolate beyond the diagram. Frankly, I'd rather leave an image entirely. The console was never produced. It shouldn't include an image that makes it look like it was. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very valid opinion, and I agree with you. I was unable to get the Panther Design Diagram into wikimedia, maybe you can? I think the actual diagram would be a far better image than the sketch or the 3D model. Thanks for the sensible reply. TheEmperorAnt (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decay[edit]

Not trying to cause issues with you, but it is Rosemary and Havok's third reign as partners. Now granted the second reign was under a different name (and with a third "Frebird" member), but it is the third time that the two women held the titles together as partners, thus it is accurate to say this is their third reign as a team, regardless of what names they were using at any particular time. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because the presence of Taya made it a different team. This is Decay, which is not the Death Dollz. Different name, different membership, different number of members, different team. Including in parentheses that Rosemary and Havok have held the titles their respective numbers each is Al correct, but this is only the second time that the pair of Rosemary and Havok on their own have held the titles. oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does Taya make it a different team? Did Crush make Demolition a different team? Did mixing and matching Big E, Kofi, and Woods make New Day a different team. The important thing is Rosemary and Havok have been championship partners three times, that is a fact. In one of those reigns they had a third partner, true enough, but the main two were still champions together. Doesn't matter what name they use, the main thing is the two women in question (Rosemary and Havok) have held the titles together as partners three times, regardless of gimmick, or if they had a third wheel during one of those reigns. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes it a different team in my mind. Only when the two of them were in Death Dollz was the Freebird rule used, so comparisons to other trios using it don't really hold up. That they were also in Death Dollz is covered by the listing if their individual numbers of reigns and the footnote at the list article. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meh...not a hill worth dying on. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re cites in Whisky[edit]

You're right, I should have dug deeper before tagging them, I was just going by the broad/strong consensus against use of blogspot - but it clearly carves out space for subject-matter experts. I do think the section is overcited, as the OED should be canonical and all that's needed; however, after looking at the talk page and some of the battleground history, I assume it's heavily cited in response to past nonsense. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. One of the things pages regarding whisk(e)y have had to deal with are the repeated addition of common urban legends and myths. Keeping things to the real facts is easier when experts are cited. It's calmed down quite a bit from even a few years ago, likely because the inclusion of the correct facts in the articles has killed some of those myths. oknazevad (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Midway debacle[edit]

Ok so what about for games back when Midway was still publishing Arcade games.

Do we put Midway Home Enetertainment for the console versions back when they were still doing Arcade era? If you want I can change all MHE links back to Midway Games for games that were released after Midway exited the arcade business.

And bad linking really??? NakhlaMan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideally we'd just put "Midway" as that's what the company was commonly called during its existence; the only reason the article is at Midway Games is for WP:NATDIS purposes because there's many other meanings of "midway". In fact, I'd say what we really should be doing is formatting all links like [[Midway Games|Midway]].

Having one division to handle arcade machine manufacturing and distribution and another one to handle home game publishing was standard practice, one that still is used by the handful of companies that are still in both markets, like Sega. It's needlessly pedantic to list specifically the home publishing division. The company's divisional structure is too trivial of a detail for such a list, and it's not like the arcade division also published home games creating a need for disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm thats not a bad idea.

Maybe we should just let it say Midway. Like you said which is [[Midway Games|Midway]].

Maybe will do that instead.

Thanks for the reply man you just given me a great and way better idea!

Appreciate it! NakhlaMan (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good to me. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be polite[edit]

You should apologize to me for your rudeness. be quick

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Pool-Billiard_Association&diff=1209777070&oldid=1209776996

Sorry, but edit warring frustrates me. I said plainly why your edits were improper and against the guideline, and yet you kept restoring them. Please listen to experienced editors and read the guidelines before bloating the articles with unneeded and incorrect links. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conf%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Europ%C3%A9enne_de_Billard&oldid=1209766032#CEB_Championships

this section is correct . i read guidelines . this section have not problem.

also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_Mondiale_de_Billard&oldid=1209731279#Events

It is not my fault that there are not many articles in English. You say you have a lot of experience, why don't you create them? Because I spent a lot of time organizing and creating links.

I have to check the rest of the returns as well. Only a small part of my edits were wrong, but you deleted them in bulk. I checked some references. I was wrong and I corrected it, but you returned it to the location of the following item:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Carom_Billiard_Confederation&oldid=1209732061#Members

i add correct reference .

70 percent of my edits were completely correct. Part of it was problematic and I agree. Meanwhile, my work continued to complete it. I put the new reference instead of the wrong one, but it's clear that you didn't check at all and deleted everything in bulk. Return all and correct, add and delete mistakes.

Please sign your posts.

Also, please see WP:WTAF. Adding long lists of red links doesn't really help.

The other issues were pretty big. It doesn't help that you don't use edit summaries at all. Every addition, deletion, or reorganization needs an edit summary, or else other editors aren't going to know what your intent is. oknazevad (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ed Nordholm[edit]

To clear things up, here is all the Anthem top brass. Nordholm is CCO, overseeing all of Anthem's properties as a bigwig. Basically, he got promoted from just merely focusing on TNA to getting to look over all of Anthem's toys. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be a bit if "kicked upstairs" with that. Either way, yeah, he should be listed. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ignorant revision[edit]

you removed all of my edits. if you think it's redundant and messy, re-organize it. i took the liberty of restoring my version so you can do so. L Esm12 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing ignorant about it. Your edits literally list in rather poor and ugly format info that's already in the article. oknazevad (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]