User talk:Sbaio

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Sbaio}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

2014
2015
2016
2017

Template:Infobox NFL team

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 not sure how you inferred that the team's city should be wikified as "Minneapolis, Minnesota" from the documentation at Template:Infobox NFL team. All it says is that the city should be wikified, which would be true if you wrote "Minneapolis, Minnesota" or "Minneapolis, Minnesota". Linking in the manner you suggest is preposterous; why would you put the city and state in the same link when you can link them separately? I totally get it in cases such as Green Bay, Wisconsin or Jacksonville, Florida, but when the title of the city's article doesn't contain the state, your method doesn't make sense. – Pee Jay 19:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: And I am not sure how you misread it. It clearly says that "Name of the city in which the franchise is based, in the form City, State (should be wikified)". You can clearly see that "City, State" is in italics and brackets after it clarifies that it should be wikified. As for linking Minneapolis, Minnesota – redirects are encouraged and WP:NOTBROKEN specifies that such linking is not against any policy. Therefore, it should either be "Minneapolis, Minnesota" or "Minneapolis, Minnesota", but not as it currently is, because this is the standard for U.S. and Canadian sports infoboxes, and there have been multiple discussions about this over the years. Just take a look at NFL, NHL, NBA, CFL or any other sports team's infobox. Even the main articles for these leagues take the same or similar approach. Such linking is made for the sake of consistency, and I showed you that ANI discussion on purpose, because he was running around with AWB and removing links from many North American-based sports infoboxes or tables (leagues, teams or even individual people). Many people took that unpleasantly and that is why he ended up in ANI. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's merely an alternative reading of the documentation. Redirects are fine, sure, but I'm not the one who made the initial change - you've gone out of your way to make this change when the article was perfectly compliant with the template documentation as it was (at least the way I read it). I'm happy to link it as "Minneapolis, Minnesota", but I figured linking Minnesota was unnecessary due to WP:OVERLINK. Can you please link me to the ANI discussion, as I don't believe you've done that yet? – Pee Jay 20:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Umm no, you were the one who made the initial change here, so your accusations are false. The prior linking before your change was "[[Minneapolis|Minneapolis, Minnesota]]", which should be reinstated until there is an understanding. The WP:OVERLINK does not say anything about removing or changing every single link of Minneapolis or Minneapolis, Minnesota (or any other city for that matter). We link it this way for consistency reasons in tables and infoboxes, which has been done for a long time until you came over and changed it. I linked the ANI discussion in my last edit summary, but looks like you just ignored it. There was also a discussion with the same user back in 2016 and he stopped for about a year, and then started it all over again, which is why it ended up in ANI. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see it, so thanks for that. Having read it, I see that [[Minneapolis|Minneapolis, Minnesota]] is one recommended solution, but I don't see what's wrong with writing [[Minneapolis]], Minnesota. It avoids the issue regarding MOS:LINKSTYLE and also avoids an unnecessary pipe. If I had made an edit just to make that one change, you might have an argument that my edit was unnecessary, but I really don't see what's wrong with it. – Pee Jay 10:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3:I will repeat it again – that is done for consistency. Simple as that. MOS:LINKSTYLE does not say anything against using this kind of linking. Either piped link or redirect is preferred in North American sports infoboxes and tables. We certainly do not want such nonsense as this. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency for consistency's sake seems a little pointless. User:Bagumba's explanation was far better. – Pee Jay 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: I have reverted you reversion in 2011 Minnesota Vikings season and 2012 Minnesota Vikings season. Please refrain from re-reverting until there is a consensus and go the that user's talk page to see what admins have to say. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

MOS:BOLDAVOID

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 mate. I saw your changes to the opening sentences of those recent Vikings season articles and I wondered if you'd seen MOS:BOLDAVOID, which says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." To that end, it seems to make sense to avoid putting a bold title in the opening sentence of those articles and instead use more natural English, as the article was doing before your edits. Any chance you could change those back so I don't have to go in and do it myself, perhaps instigating yet another edit war? – Pee Jay 11:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I recognise that your other argument was consistency with other NFL team season articles, but I would suggest that perhaps those all need changing too. I'm willing to do it for the Vikings articles, but it might require a bit of effort from the rest of WP:NFL. – Pee Jay 11:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Then please start a discussion at WT:NFL, because this thing is project-wide. As for "as the article was doing before your edits" statement – in 3 of those 4 pages, you changed it to your version at some point without any discussion whatsoever, so this falls on you. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you drop the accusatory tone. It smacks of you being not here to collaborate. Also, I appreciate the spirit of WP:BRD, but if you're going to kick up a stink about this several months down the line, it seems to me that it's no longer my responsibility to prove that this is a useful change. That said, I can see the benefit of a centralised discussion and I'm afraid I trust myself to frame the debate better than I trust you. – Pee Jay 12:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: For your information, I am not accusing anyone. I looked through the histories of those pages and saw that you made the initial change at some point. I only restored it to the format, which was used in seasons' pages for years. Just because you feel intimidated for no apparent reason, it does not mean that I am in the wrong place. As for the centralized discussion, I was/am not going to start it since you are the one who wants to make a change. I could contribute to it if I feel/felt like it, but that is up to me. There were too many times when someone came and changed some information, and I was the one that had to start a discussion somewhere, because those users would instead take the edit war path. – Sabbatino (talk)

Seems like we've got that in common, at least. And no, I'm not the one who wants to make the change. I made the change, it was accepted by silent consensus, and you changed it back for a reason that actually isn't supported by the policy you cited. I get the consistency argument, I really do, but that's the only thing that supports your position on this, and although it won't be easy to change all the other articles, it can be done with a bit of effort, which would create consistency in the other direction. – Pee Jay 13:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Olympic Athletes from Russia birthplaces

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 there a reason why we include American states and Canadian provinces, but not Russian federal territories? I had gone in and edited in the oblasts and krais for the players born in Russia (post Soviet Union) and I see you took them out. What's the reason for not including them? –uncleben85 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going to use this space to comment on the East Germany business as well. Brain fart by me. Though East Germany was a Soviet State before they gave power to what became the East German government. Then there was still Soviet occupation all through East Germany's existence. Just a mistake on my part, after spending all day on those Olympic rosters. Thanks for fixing that.

@Uncleben85: It is pretty much the standard to list states or provinces for the U.S. or Canadian cities. Even in the NHL broadcasts they would write something like "New York, NY" or similar. However, since these roster tables are of limited space, I would not object if states and provinces were removed from the cities. Oblasts and krais are not usually listed for Russian cities since they do not add anything relevant, while for players born in the Soviet Union it is different as it consisted of 15 republics. On the other had, I see a huge problem with WP:OVERLINK as some cities or countries are linked more than once. As for East Germany – they were never a Soviet state. Only the states that were in the Soviet Union could be called Soviet states, while all other communist states would be called as satellite states. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm fine with thatt being the standard and all, was just curious if you knew where the standard originally came from! As for Overlink, I was thinking about that too, but I think one of the issues with not overlinking is that the tables are sortable. So, while we could link to just the first instance of a link, as soon as the tables are sorted under a different lead, that link would potentially get buried, right?. –uncleben85 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncleben85: Well that is not where the standard came from. I just gave you an example about NHL broadcasts. In Wikipedia we usually list "City, State/Province" in tables or infoboxes for American and Canadian players. We could leave the first link at "Birthplace" and it would sort correctly. However, we should wait for players' numbers and then remove repeated links. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I get it's not because of broadcasts. I guess there's just not explicit reason why we do it for American and Canadian players but not others. As for the links, okay. If you sort by anything other than number, the link will get buried, but it would work out. Sounds good. –uncleben85 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dinamo Riga Logo Corrupted?

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.

Sorry to bother you, but I have a question regarding your upload of File:Dinamo Riga Logo.svg.

If I were to download the file and attempt to edit it using Inkscape, all it shows me is garbled shapes. If I attempt to upload it to another Wiki, it is corrupted.

I have noticed this with a lot of sports logos from here, and was hoping you could shed some light on this if you could. Is there added code which prevents it from being used outside Wikipedia?

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearVacuum: You have the right to ask questions so no need to apologize. First of all, I am not an expert in these things so my knowledge is very limited. I cannot help you, because I use Illustrator and everything is showing good in my program. You should consider asking these questions in Wikipedia:SVG help where more experienced users could explain it to you. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi

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 was going based on player efficiency on who the captain is for the Celtics & Knicks. That's why I edited it for Kyrie Irving and Kristaps Porziņģis. 600CW (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@600CW: "Player efficiency" is not the source to determine who is the captain. We only list captains if the team announces it. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Apologies

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 apologize to you for being rude in some of our discussions in the previous years. It's easy for a novice to get offended when they don't know the rules of Wikipedia. As time has passed and I'm more aware of the rules + encyclopaedic rules in general, which indeed are meant for encouraging a higher quality of content to be produced, I find these topics increasingly interesting. I hope we can work together to build historically accurate content on the "Baltic states" concept / term / label for the benefit of all included countries and the readers. The history of the term itself seems to be much more interesting and nuanced than the contents currently show.

There is definitely a balance to be found on how much to write about the term's history itself and how much to write about the histories and facts of the current three countries that are listed under the term. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no need to apologize. Even the most experienced users that have been here since day one make mistakes. The Baltic states' page has flaws, but the same can be said about the majority pages on Wikipedia. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Toronto St. Patricks logo.svg

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.

Hey, I noticed you uploaded the original St. Pats logo in the commons, and you have it flagged it as as a non-free media image. I was just wondering, would the logo not be considered in the public domain in the US (being a pre-1921 image)? Honestly, not too familiar with copyright law hence the question. Thanks in advanced. Leventio (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leventio: I suppose this matter should be taken to WP:FFD since I am not familiar with the copyright questions either. However, seeing that File:Montreal Canadiens.svg is in Wikimedia Commons then this should be the same case. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

NY Jets - Bob Mischak Removal?

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.

Mischak is first Titan/Jet All Star in team history. Fact verified by club and on display at NFL HoF. Why was it removed? Thanks! Cane di Ferro (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The better question would be – what does "first Titan/Jet All Star in team history" mean? All-AFL team selection or All-Star game? Sources are needed for such claims if there is not enough information on Wikipedia regarding the subject. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You remove all the career highlights that were added to Mischak bio? Nothing fallacious about those facts. All that work down the drain.... Cane di Ferro (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Army HoF yet there is verified reference to that on the page. If I am close to the facts, how can you remove wholesale sections of the post? How can one tell the story? Cane di Ferro (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cane di Ferro: First of all, you do not own anything here. Secondly, please read WP:NFLINFOBOX before adding content to the infobox. Thirdly, stop spamming on my talk page as there is no need to create 3 sections for the same subject. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Talk:Belarus#RfC_on_the_removal_of_transliterated_and_Russian_names

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. This is a courtesy note to advise you that I have closed an RFC you initiated, at Talk:Belarus#RfC_on_the_removal_of_transliterated_and_Russian_names. Should you have any questions please let me know. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 14:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Edit warring?

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 have no idea what you're talking about.

Before today I hadn't edited the Cavs article in 3 weeks.

Edit warring is going tit for tat with reversions rapid fire style...22 days between edits does not an edit war make.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you were edit warring in the Cavaliers' page. However, given your history with edit wars, you might easily get into one. In addition, you edit summary "Trust me...this is better" implies that you might take that path as in the past. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 are you doing?!?

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 had it linked to 2018 NBA playoffs for a reason, and you bypassed my warning against moving the page. I was planning on moving all of the playoff pages after this year's playoffs was completed. –Piranha 249 19:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha249 What are you talking about? I did not move anything as the move was done by a user who has page mover's rights after I requested it. The NBA use "Playoffs" instead of playoffs. I am not going to discuss anything with someone who is rude and not civil from the beginning and is "warning" others not to do something, which shows that you try to own some of the pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of New York Rangers seasons - Section

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 just wanted a bit of clarification on why you removed the expanded lists I put on several pages. I can't argue about it being trivia but isn't most of what appears on pages like the season-by-season list trivia? They don't add anything that can't be found on other parts of this site, they only consolidate information into easily read formats. Secondly, I had mirrored the lists on one that appears at the bottom of List of Ottawa Senators seasons so I had thought that no one would have an issue with them. Thank you for your time. PensRule11385 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are trivial lists. The page's name is "List of Ottawa Senators seasons" so it is quite clear what content should be included there. You can always ask if something should or should not be added at WT:NHL since that WikiProject handles all ice hockey-related stuff. As for the "season-by-season record" – it shows the team's achievements of the last five seasons and the guideline for it clearly shows how a team's main page should look. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lietuvos rytas recently took the history of Statyba

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 old owner of Lietuvos rytas was the one who bought Statyba, then he decided to erase the club and make a new one. The new ownership of Lietuvos rytas changed that decision and took the club's history back. So the current club is currently counting the old titles.Bluesangrel (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: First of all, what are you talking about? Secondly, you can stop lecturing me about Statyba and Lietuvos rytas history as I am sure I know it better than you or any other people who do not live in Lithuania. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about that when the club got new ownership, it decided to change the original owner's decision not to recognize the club's history before he owned it. Thus, they reversed that decision that removed the club's history prior to him owning the club. In other words, the club now does count and recognize it's existence originally, when it was Statyba.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: I will ask you again – why are you writing me about the history of this team, which I know very well? Is there any edit conflict? Because I do not remember editing anything related to this team recently. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No edit conflict. I was just letting you know that, since I believe you edited the list of Lithuanian basketball champions article to say they were different clubs and had no relation. That's fine. I never undid your edit. I am simply saying, that it's technically no longer true since 2017. But I won't undue your edit. I was just saying, because in the future, some other people might edit articles noting that the club did take back the history last year, and it might get removed. That's all.Bluesangrel (talk)

@Bluesangrel: I assume you mean this edit? You just misinterpreted my edit summary. We do not list the current incarnation of the club in such lists. For example, we do not list "Philadelphia 76ers" next to Syracuse Nationals on List of NBA champions page. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Primary vs Secondary sources

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 so you know, the teams website would be a primary source. Secondary sources such as news articles pretty much always trump primary sources. So whether or not the team web page would have listed his as interim GM (which to be honest I don't think any team ever does with interim positions) because its reported in secondary sources we would go with the secondary sources per WP:RSPRIMARY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to remind me about primary and secondary sources. And yes, teams sometimes list interim positions, such as coaches. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Zubrus

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.

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Zubrus is banging them in this year's World Cup II B despite being well-retired. Might want to add to the article. Best, Splićanin (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Splićanin (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Splićanin: He does play in 2018 IIHF World Championship Division I. So does Kasparaitis. But what should be updated exactly? Stats are usually updated after the event/competition ends. So does the prose. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, thank you for yours. Splićanin (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

DYK for Scott Foster (ice hockey)

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 30 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scott Foster (ice hockey), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Scott Foster, a 36-year-old accountant, made his professional ice hockey debut as a goaltender for the Chicago Blackhawks in 2018 and saved every shot he faced? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scott Foster (ice hockey). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Scott Foster (ice hockey)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Transparent background for image

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, I wanted to ask you if you could make the background of an image transparent for me. I have no idea how that works. It's this one: logo. Could you do that? Thanks in advance. Akocsg (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akocsg: I can do that, but I need to know a source from where this logo was taken as it could get deleted from Wikipedia if no source is provided. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From www.futbolistik.com. Though the site is down for a time now unfortunately and I don't think it will be online again. The logo is from a dissolved sports club anyway, there won't be any copyright problems. Akocsg (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 coach categories

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.

These are actually added when the coach is named, which is different from how player categories are handled. Just re-added to the David Fizdale article. Rikster2 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rikster2: If I remember correctly both categories are treated equally. What happens when a head coach does not coach the team in at least 1 game? I do understand that this is hardly possible, but there is always a possibility. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has never been like that. In the very rare cases where a coach doesn't assume the job we just remove the category. Coaches start to assume duties for the organization pretty much immediately, which is why it's handled a little differently. Rikster2 (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rikster2: Thanks for clarifying this as I was sure that the same practice was applied to coaches and players. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:IndyCar Series logo.svg listed for discussion

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.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IndyCar Series logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Let's sort out the issue about Grand Duchy of Lithuania

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. As i could guess you are from Lithuania, so all the thins you have said is a bit interesting to me, however, being wrong isn't humiliating. The first issue is that Lithuania under Vytautas the Great did expand the most ; Link of picture https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/6hmg11/expansion_of_grand_duchy_of_lithuania_in_the_13th/ . Look at it and you will see where Vytautas and Gediminas name is- plus knowing that Vytautas the Great came after Gediminas, it's clear i'm not wrong. Secondarily, with that paragraph i wanted to make it clear for people that MINDAUGAS united the Lithuanian tribes, not Gediminas, as i talked about it to my friend, and he said that 'consolidation' in that sense doesn't make sense-as it makes it sound like Gediminas united Lithuanian tribes 'The multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state emerged only at the late reign of Gediminas'. THE issue is that it's not clear who united Lithuania on the page but the truth is that Mindaugas united Lithuania, 'Geography now' a YouTube channel made that mistake and said that Gediminas united Lithuania... thats why i read the wikipedia page and i realised its confusing, so that should be stated clearly in the summary that Mindaugas united Lithuania and overall Mindaugas is more important in terms of the historical factors for Lithuania, but thank you for telling me that the first part is the 'summary' but still big names like Vytautas the Great, Gediminas, Algirdas and Mindaugas should be mentioned, as mainly they expanded with a chain of reactions.

Thank You, waiting for a reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantvydas Vandzinskas (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mantvydas Vandzinskas: First of all, please read the WP:BRD policy before making more edits. You should also read the WP:EW policy as you are edit warring and that could get you in trouble very quickly. I again reverted your additions so do not reinstate them until the matter has been discussed. Secondly, the lede/lead paragraph is supposed to summarize key facts. Mindaugas was not the one who started the unification of Balts' lands, but he was the one who finished it. Read other sections to get a better understanding as it is clear that you are wrong by making contradictions between the lede and the rest of the text. Thirdly, please read again about which time the Territorial expansion paragraph is talking about. It talks about the early 14th century when Gediminas was the ruler, while Vytautas became the Grand Duke at the end of the 14th century. In addition, it was Algirdas who became the Grand Duke after Gediminas and not Vytautas as you claim so that is another contradiction. YouTube, Reddit, blogs and similar websites are not sources so please read the WP:RS policy to get a better understanding. Oh right, reading WP:MOS would not hurt you either as you tend to make mistakes here and there... – Sabbatino (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, i never said Vytautas the Great became the Grand Duke of Lithuania befoer Algirdas, so i never contradicted myself there. Secondly i know you want to be right but Mindaugas did start and finish the unification of the Lithuanain tribes, as you said the information is wrong that i wrote, no it isn't and if it is why didn't you put a link of where i can read about how someone else quote on quote started the unification, because as far as i'm concerned Mindaugas did everything with his power and in a 'bloody historic way' so yeah, didn't contradict myself there. P.S what i mean-send me a link where i can read about how someone else tried to unify Lithuania into one whole, if you can't then i will change it back. Thirdly, the expansion stuff, i'm not wrong, please read 'The expansion of the state reached its HEIGHT UNDER Grand Duke Gediminas' what does that mean ? tell me, like truly? It clearly says that under Gediminas Lithuania reached it's full height, when it fact it didn't but Vytautas the Great made Lithuania reach from, the black sea to the baltic. You have contradicted everything you have said without backing up your work or what you have said, so please improve on that. As i guess it will continue :D it won't hurt reading some history on Lithuania and gaining some knowledge on the way. I will add information and as you saw i never took any information away. Plus, you are thinking that Mindaugas didn't start the unification because you are reading work that is not written clearly and without proper knowledge... .Furthermore, after you send me some kind of information that says that Mindaugas didn't start the unification then and only at the point will i stop changing the things. That's why i want to sort this out in a civilised matter where you actually realised i never contradicted anything I've said, thank you. Waiting for reply.

@Mantvydas Vandzinskas: Just want to point out that I am not going to discuss any further if this rudeness from your side is continued. Got it? As for other things, I am not able to show any quotes since I am not at home and will not be back until at least Sunday. And as for "it won't hurt reading some history on Lithuania and gaining some knowledge on the way" statement – this is not the place for personal attacks. I advise you to get familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies before continuing. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Firstly, i wasn't being rude- just stating a clear fact. Also, i'm not trying to come off negative, wrong or rude with the comment 'Read history on Lithuanian' as i don't know how much you know , but i know what i'm talking about is fully accurate and true (with what i was trying to add) - i wouldn't write wrong information on Wikipedia as i'm a moral person with respect to Lithuanian history, plus i really really do want to sort this issue out as quick as possible. Also, it's not my fault that someone on 'Grand Duchy Of Lithuania' has written something unclearly without giving clear evidence, even further in wikipedia it's not clearly state about Mindaugas and how important he was for Lithuania, but i will be waiting for your reply with links or inserted pictures from books on the matter, as i've said before in the past message i will be waiting for your information, but in fact we can both discuss how to change that part and make it clear that under Vytautas the Great, Lithuania reached it's highest expansion but that Gediminas was the first to expand and have major successful battles that allow Lithuania to expand. Also, i'm just trying to show the history of Lithuania clearly- i don't know where you from, but it doesn't sound like you were taught Lithuanian history in Lithuania(not being rude, so please keep talking, so we can fix this). Also, what statement i'm making about the page is that it's mostly correct but there is some things that need to be edited, and as you said that i shouldn't listen to information on BLogs or YouTube, i don't if i know it's not correct but in Lithuania you get taught Lithuanian history at a very young age, which is reinforced for many years as you keep learning (as far as i remember the education system), also my point wasn't that the information was wrong, because yes Gediminas was the first to expand outside of Lithuanians original territory but my point was that it's not stated clearly who actually united Lithuania lands and tribes into one, Mindaugas was the first to use the 'Bloody historical ways' of gaining power to unite Lithuania- furthermore as i said before, if you know the 'Geography Now' Channel, the guy was talking about Lithuanian geography mainly but also their history and he said that 'Gediminas' was the one that united Lithuania and that he was the first and only King of Lithuania, when in fact he wasn't and that information is far from correct. So, i was interested of where he got that information- i went through many pages and read thoroughly. After i went on Wikipedia i read it, it seemed normal, but after i realised it's not clearly stated that Mindaugas is the first and only King who was like (99.9%) of why Lithuania was united. Thank You for discussing this with me, i will be waiting for the information. The changes that i do want to make are 'The state reached its greatest expansion under Vytautas The Great' not Gediminas, as i've said this can be placed in a separate paragraph which states that-but the already existing paragraph on it can be left there, as there isn't a problem with it but i think it would be good to add a date of when Gediminas was in Rule as the Great Duke of Lithuania- meaning that, Put the year and state that during these years Lithuania expanded hugely while Gediminas was in Power and then create a seperate paragraph on the information relating Vytautas the Great. I really want to sort this out and Thank you for dedicating your time. Waiting for the reply on the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantvydas Vandzinskas (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wanted to add this, as in my opinion it's important. As someone of the information on the article 'Grand Duchy of Lithuania' was literally plagiarised, but the main issue is the information used in the plagiarised parts isn't correct (The Gediminas part mainly) this is the article- if it doesn't open to page 184, go to the page 184. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nlrxCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=Consolidation+of+the+Lithuanian+lands+began+in+the+late+12th+century&source=bl&ots=iDyzRQBBQQ&sig=_ZRIgEW93rB7iRkO6bbyXN1OAvI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjItrqhvpDbAhXLWsAKHZBPBBsQ6AEIODAB#v=onepage&q=Consolidation%20of%20the%20Lithuanian%20lands%20began%20in%20the%20late%2012th%20century&f=false

As you might think i'm being over the top, but i'm not as the person was doing Lithuanians Country study only including some lines on the Lithuanian history, the person got the information wrong from some kind of source plus he was doing it for the modern part, the information pack/study was also made in USA who don't study the Lithuanian history, so he/she didn't care about the passed. I do have a links of the facts that i have stated, but it's in Lithuanian as it was written by a Lithuanian women. So i don't know how i can explain the information, to make my point. As it would take a long time to translate but if that's what you need to prove my information i will do it :D. This is the booklet of information (in Lithuanian) http://www.punskas.pl/leidykla/Istorijos%20vadovelis.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantvydas Vandzinskas (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mantvydas Vandzinskas: First of all, I am from Lithuania and have read many books about this matter and have been studying this topic since I was a little kid. You do not need to write a book when replying to me since you are repeating yourself and do not help this discussion to go further. It is hard to understand what you want when you mix ten thoughts into one as it becomes unclear. Moving on to the subject:

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania page was mostly written by Lithuanian and Polish users with some input by users from other countries. The link from Google books does not work for me, while the other book is meant for secondary school students, which is not a reliable source since many facts are not written there.
The Baltic lands were indeed started to get unified in the end of the 12th century, but the stable state was created only in the 13th century when Mindaugas became the Grand Duke and later King. Here is an excerpt from a book called "Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija": Lietuvių žemių konfederacija. More information about the unification can be found in the 12th and 13th books.
The statement about the "height of expansion being under Gediminas' rule" is unclear. It is true that he "created a strong central government", however, the biggest territory was under Vytautas' rule. Therefore, that statement needs to be changed by splitting it into two sentences – the first sentence would mention Gediminas, while the other sentence would talk about the height of expansion. I see two options in dealing with the second sentence (height of expansion). First option: if we were to base the "expansion" bit according to this map then we would see that most lands were gained (as in area in km²) when Algirdas and Kęstutis were the rulers. Second option: if "height of expansion" is supposed to mean the biggest territory that the state had then Vytautas should be listed. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yes, sometimes i want to write too much and i get lost in my thoughts :D. (Thought you weren't from Lithuania, so i was kind of like what are you talking about, but now i see). Also, i guess you are much older than me, since i'm only 17 and i haven't lived in Lithuania for a long time i haven't had the access to the proper Lithuanian text books about their history- otherwise i would of known the information. So touching on your points; 1- (that's great). 2-After reading the text book that you sent (the small part of it). I understand, in short someone was already building up the relationships and they had a quote on quote 'political' agreement. Also, sorry for changing the century, misunderstood the word "consolidation". 3- Yes the statement is written in a unclear way. Well i think both of the options work actually wouldn't you say? We could write that in terms of land that Algirdas and Kestutis took during their rules was the most overall but in terms of overall territory under Vytautas Lithuania experienced the biggest growth/size(Adding the image of the map that you sent me) as a lot of people prefer images and it's easier at the same time to understand, giving a reference point as well for the information. This is again up to you in terms of using one of the options or both of them but it does say "Territorial expansion" which does mean we should use both of the options as it's an overall view of the expansion not just largest in area and so on. Also, i don't know if you want me to write it or you will do it-If you have used the English language for a longer time then you should write it, also it would be much clearer as i might start using difficult words and go over the top, also you know how to use Wikipedia better then me, as we will have to add reference for the information. I can try writing it if you want me to and then sending it to you, so you would check it, then we would agree on the information, layout and then change it on the page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantvydas Vandzinskas (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mantvydas Vandzinskas: I will look into it when I have more time. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wanted to ask you-could you recommend some books on Lithuanian history- from the 11th to 16th century more or less. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantvydas Vandzinskas (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mantvydas Vandzinskas: Just want to remind you that this is not a forum and talk pages should not be uses as such. As for recommendations of the books, I cannot recommend anything since I do not have any of those books anymore and I do not really remember the names of them. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it's alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantvydas Vandzinskas (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Marc-Andre Fleury 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.

Hello, I don't see the stats for Marc-Andre for his season with the Vegas Golden Knights in detail like his stats for the Penguins and other teams. Why is that? BaileyLynne (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BaileyLynne: That is because the statistics are updated when the player's season ends. Since the Golden Knights will play in the Stanley Cup Finals the statistics will be updated after that. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Only players who played NHL games shall be added"

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.

If you can show me where this is stated it would be highly appreciative. I completely disagree with this, I feel like any player who was under contract is significant enough to be added. I follow NHL transactions well enough to proceed with these additions and it also archives the seasons much better than prior. It's like why should we add free agent signings of insignificant players if we are not going to add insignificant departures. I'm willing to take on this work. Nanerz (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanerz: The best place to discuss this is at WT:HOCKEY. I am certainly not going through all of the archived talk pages to search for something that you can do yourself. On the other hand, it does not matter if similar discussion took place in the past since opinions can change over time and it would be a good idea to start a new discussion. There is as NHL team season pages format page, but it is outdated and must be updated per this discussion. I do not have time right now to update it, but that does not meant that you should not start a discussion. Moving on to retired players, there have been many players that were under contract with an NHL team, but never played a game in the NHL. Such players have no significance and are usually omitted from the retirements tables. The player who signed elswhere has been restored since that is how it was done in the previous seasons. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not too concerned with the retired players issue since I do not have any frets with that reasoning, although he was called up last season and was on the roster at one point last season. My main issue is with leaving players considering yes, it has been done previously and I'm completely willing to take it on. It seems as though Wikipedia has been one of the only sites to be able to view this information which was the main reason for me to start making these edits. Nanerz (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanerz: Wikipedia might be one of the websites that show all transactions, but all that information comes from websites like TSN, ESPN, CBS Sports, Elite Prospects, CapFriendly or the NHL itself. It is hard to keep track of all these websites so I usually go with TSN, CapFriendly or NHL. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly just go with EliteProspects since you can filter on leagues, but you have to pay a little closer attention on the players under contract. I recognize most if not all names so it isn't much of an issue for me. I just think it's nice to have all the info in one place. Nanerz (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2018–19 Chicago Blackhawks season

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 determine as the dividing point for signings of each year? Is it the draft? Lincolning (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lincolning: All the trades and signings (free agent and player signings) that happen before or during the NHL Awards ceremony go to the last completed season's page (2017–18 in this instance). Every trade and signing (free agent and player signings) that happen on the next day after the NHL Awards ceremony go to the new season's page (2018–19 in this instance). Hope this helps. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was looking for. Wasn't aware of the dividing point. Thanks. Lincolning (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Arnoldas Kulboka

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.

Zalgiris' reserve team isn't professional level. That's semi pro at best. That should not be listed on the infobox, which is only for professional teams.Bluesangrel (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: BC Žalgiris-2 is a professional team since it competes in the National Basketball League, which is the second-tier league in the Lithuanian basketball system. The reserve team can be promoted to Lietuvos krepšinio lyga, which is the top-tier league. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought it was a semi pro.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Stanley Cup

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.

@Sabbatino:)

Hi, I understand your concerns about the inclusion of the 125th Anniversary commemorative coins paragraph in the Stanley Cup article. If you like I can open a discussion on the Stanley Cup talk page whether the inclusion of the Stanley Cup 125th Anniversary Commemorative coins from the Royal Canadian Mint should be included as part of the article and if the consensus no then I will abide by that. YborCityJohn (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@YborCityJohn: I think that asking at WT:NHL is the better option since more users will see it. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of New York Rangers Seasons Table Edit

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 table is indeed quite big, but the information I added resulted in the creation of only one more column. The information for the League Finish (Standings) column was provided directly by NHL.com, the official site of the National Hockey League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.28.116.119 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@73.28.116.119: NHL might have such standings, but in all record books team's finish is usually listed as "Division, Place". For example, "Atlantic, 3rd". There is no place where the NHL teams would be classified according to league finish. In addition, the table has several notes, which indicate what was different at that given point. Hope this helps. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Eagles

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 am RavenLord64. I would have talked to you sooner however I was on break to Pennsylvania. I know you think the titles "Current" and "Defending" are irrelevant but I think there relevant for now. Just saying their Super Bowl Champions is generic and bland and could be used for all but 12 teams. I believe that those titles are relevant for now but the page will be edited to remove those titles in February. RavenLord64 (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RavenLord64: Per MOS:DATED and MOS:REALTIME we should not use "current", "defending" and similar statements, because they will become outdated at some point. The team's main page is supposed to include key facts, which is why the "They are Super Bowl champions, having won Super Bowl LII; their first Super Bowl in franchise history, and their fourth NFL title overall, after winning the Championship Game in 1948, 1949, and 1960." statement is correct. However, if you would talk about the 2018 NFL season or 2018 Philadelphia Eagles season pages then the "current", "defending" and similar statements are correct, because these two pages (along with other 2018 season pages) are/will be edited every day as these events will be ongoing. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know rules were involved. I understand. Thanks, RavenLord64 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Stan Mikita

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 8 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Stan Mikita, 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. Strikerforce^Talk 15:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Strikerforce^Talk 15:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Maps of medieval Lithuania

@ Sabbatino,

I cannot generate SVG graphics.

Don't you see that my adaption has a much more deliberate symbolism of colours and some more informations?

Best regards, Ulamm (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it would be better to draw a complete new map and make two or more different labellings in different languages. But that requires a lot of time.--Ulamm (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulamm: Having more colors does not mean that it is better. In addition, your version has low resolution, which is also worse than the SVG file. Extra colors (other states) and arrows do not make it better, because the map is supposed to show the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the way the map is used in Wikipedia, top resolutions are not required.

My colours show the Lithuanian core of the Grand Duchy. And they show, that the later conquests were more and more Slavic.

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania became a powerful state in resistance against the Teutonic Order.

The Teutonic Order had treaties of Poland, the Holy Roman Empire and the pope to conquer Old Prussia. Nevertheless, short after 1300, it also conquered Gdansk Pomerania.

Finally, the Union of Kreva with Poland enabled both Lithuania and Poland to overcome the Order (Battle of Grunwald).

But before that success, fixed by the peace of Melno, the State of the Order had occupied the northwest of Lithuania for several decades. That feature is shown in my version by the blue arrows from the State of the Order into Lithuania.--Ulamm (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG map shows the same information clearly. Colors quite clearly indicate the expansion and the legend explains that. On a side note, why "Lutzk" became "Luck"? How did you determine where certain cities (Posen, Gnessen and others) are located and how are they relevant to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? Same goes for places like "Masowien" and others for which you added borders. How did you determine that? Why were those dates and arrows added if we cannot see them in the legend? Files should be in SVG format if they are available, and this particular map is available in SVG. I understand that you want to improve it, but introducing obsolete format is not the best way to do it. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVG may be very correct a construction, but our screens are not as exact. This way, SVG creates a lot of "dirty" colours in many pixels.

The position of cities and borders can be determined exactly by creating transparent overlays from more detailed maps and giving them the required size by reducing the resolution.

As a result of the Union of Krevo, the Lithuanian dwelt core of Lithuania became part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Gniezno, in 1387. Poznań is the capital of Greater Poland, Kraków, the capital of Lesser Poland was the royal city of all Poland. Masovia was a part of the archbishopric of Gniezno, all the time, but its reintegration into secular Poland succeeded as late as in 1526. I did a lot of research and collecting confirmations, integrating them in the map of historical Landscapes of poland.--Ulamm (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to look at the page involved and you want to insert your version to Kingdom of Lithuania page? You do realize that this state existed from 1251 to 1263? The page had this map, but someone changed it in February 2018. So both of these maps SVG and your version are irrelevant to the topic and the older version should be restored, because any expansion after 1263 is irrelevant to the Kingdom of Lithuania. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flag revert - help please?

Here - can you take a look at the user's other recent flag-related edits? I've reverted some, but I think you are better informed than me. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast: It appears that I should not have reverted that addition, because File:Flag of Russia (1696–1917).svg is superseded and File:Flag of Russia.svg should be used instead. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rogers page deletes

Greetings, User:Sabbatino. I'm sure by now you have received my thanks for your persistence in culling the YouTube link in the Media appearances section recently added by another user. I was just trying to be constructive in moving the link to another passage that would be self-citing, but did not do the due diligence to see whether it actually led where it was supposed to. Appreciate your catching it. As far as I'm concerned I'd be happy if the entire new passage was deleted, as it is no help to the encyclopedia or its reputation to have it loaded up at article after article with trivial mentions of every time a person, vehicle, book, anime character, etc., was mentioned somewhere in this galaxy. Lemme find some kind of Barn Star for you. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sports Page Policing Barn Star

Greetings Sabbatino. I hereby award you the Sports Page Policing Barn Star.

	The Running Man Barnstar
	Not for adding superfluous stuff to Sports articles, but for keeping junk out. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some Wikipedia contributors have more time to design Barn Stars than I have time to cull through them for one that might actually be appropriate. If there is one moreso than this (which ain't), please award it to yourself. Had I the time I'd alter the graphics to show a policeman chasing a Wikipedia contributor adding junk to sports articles. You'll have to use your imagination. Best, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

@Snidester: You should read WP:DTTR before warning regular editors. In addition, pages like CapFriendly and Elite Propspects are just simple databases of statistics, which means that they cannot be considered as reliable sources. It is amazing that I am being singled out when one other registered user made the same reverts. Not only the IP user/users restored the WP:CRYSTAL content, but they also restored bad formatting and awkward wording. A simple search on the Dallas Stars' website shows that Heiskanen is listed on the team's roster, and that was my mistake for not checking it in the first place. However, restoring bad content by the IPs is in fact bad faith when a simple message on my talk page would have solved the problem. I do not want to make any accusations, but it is strange that a user, who has not edited for a long time and is a relatively new user, just comes out of nowhere and complains about other user in the defence of the IPs. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: Hmm, I see, I admittely thought this was just an acting of biting the newcomers, and I didn't restore anything made by the IP. I'm simply choosing not to get involved in the editing part, and I think both of you need to reach a consensus rather than edit war before administrator intervention is truly necessary. As you should know WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. Also, I prefer not to edit under IP addresses and I've been autoblocked before. I came out in defense because I was returning to Wikipedia and planned to make an edit to the Miro article (can't remember what it was now) and I noticed this in the edit history. Snidester (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snidester: First of all, I did not say that you restored anything. Secondly, you are not allowed to edit other user's comments per WP:TPO (both "defence" and "defense" are correct). Thirdly, just because the IP editor is editing with hostility and does not really know the guidelines or policies, that does not mean that there should be any consensus when there is no controversy. The only one who started acting out was the IP editor (I got an impression that different IP addresses were used by the same person). Lastly, there is no point in starting a discussion on uninvolved user's talk page. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: I don't plan to get involved in a debate, but I will clarify that I wasn't intending to edit your comment there. Also, I've moved the discussion here.