User talk:Oknazevad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Trenton-Mercer airport[edit]

You've reverted the rename/move of the article a couple months ago, stating it's probably a case like Wilkes-Barre. It's not. Here's why. The Wilkes-Barre case is the case of a hyphenated geographic location, as in "the airport located in Wilkes-Barre" (where Wilkes-Barre is the name of a city) – whereas the Trenton–Mercer Airport is a name formed by joining of two independent entities in equal standing: the city of Trenton and the Mercer County. Hence, the "Trenton–Mercer Airport" should use a dash, not a hyphen. Please rename appropriately. cherkash (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, I can find no sources whatsoever actually using the dash. Quoting the guideline: "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities.". From all sources I can find, including the airport's website and coverage in multiple news sources, this is the exact, appropriate situation for Trenton-Mercer Airport; like Wilkes-Barre, which is a single entity named for two people, Trenton-Mercer Airport is a single entity with a compounded proper name. So it would be out of line with the sources to make te move, which is why I reverted your move in the first place. In short, it is named appropriately.oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Two points. First, the sources. You cannot rely on sources to tell you what the correct punctuation is in subtle cases like this: most people are oblivious to subtleties in the use of punctuation – and dash vs. hyphen is one of those subtle things. The problem is of course further compounded by the difficulty in typesetting dashes in the modern computer setting – so most people would readily use a hyphen produced by the "-" key on the keyboard, without ever giving it a second thought. So just because you are finding only sources where the hyphen (or minus – how do you even tell the difference?) was used, doesn't mean it's correct and/or intentional.
Second point, the actual semantics. In case of Wilkes-Barre, it's a name of the city (a single entity) which is traditionally spelled with hyphen – and that single entity is what gives name to the Wilkes-Barre Airport (on the pattern of "X airport"). In case of Trenton–Mercer Airport, there's no such entity as "Trenton-Mercer". Instead, there are two things separately called "Trenton" and "Mercer" which give rise to the compound name of the airport (on the pattern "X–Y airport"). Compare multiple similar cases of other airport names: Charlottesville–Albemarle Airport (origin of the name is exactly the same as "Trenton–Mercer": it's a combination of Charlottsville (a city) and Albemarle (a county)), Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (combination of names of two people), Pitt–Greenville Airport (county + city), Warren–Sugarbush Airport (town + nearby resort), Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport (metro area + specific city in it), Austin–Bergstrom International Airport (city + person), etc. cherkash (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I can rely on first class publications like the New Tork Times (which I specifically checked) for punctuation. I wasn't just speaking of web sources, either. The point remains, though, on the semantics: one airport that was specifically given a double barreled name using a hyphen. It is a proper noun, and should be kept with its proper spelling. oknazevad (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC) PS, there is no "Wilkes-Barre Airport"; that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the city itself.
I see your line of reasoning. But I don't believe it's a fixed established name: you can see airport referred to alternately as "Trenton–Mercer", "Trenton Mercer" or "Trenton/Mercer" in different sources – which shows the compound nature of the name still consisting of two separate entities (city + county). See e.g. here and here for NJ/Mercer County official website. Again, although I see the point you are trying to make, it all boils down to us not looking for the sources pointing to the correct spelling/punctuation (it's a wrong question to ask), but for the sources pointing to the correct semantics from which the correct spelling will follow according to standard rules. And this leads to understanding that the name is compound of the "X–Y airport" type (with X and Y being independent entities of equal standing) rather than "X airport" type (where X is an established entity in itself, which it is not in this case – as there is no such thing as Trenton-Mercer outside the context of this airport's name). Oh, and by the way, Wilkes-Barre as a city, not airport, is a bad example: the rules for geographic names (and their hyphenization) are different from other conventions on hyphen/dash. cherkash (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

More power to you![edit]

Hey! Thanks for doing some cleanup work on RPG articles, always good to see another person helping out. :) BOZ (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help. Getting back into the hobby, so it's been a good way to remember what I know. I've added the RPG project (and D&D project) to my watchlist, so you'll be seeing me around. oknazevad (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

edit summaries
Thank you, railfan, for your contributions to articles on transportation, for work on templates ("Good thinking and a nice bold move") and for quality edit summaries when you clean articles from blue, POV and crystalball, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 551st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for assistance updating the Verizon Enterprise Solutions article[edit]

Hello, I'm reaching out to you as I see you recently made some improvements to the Verizon Communications article. I'm an employee of Verizon, and am working to improve a few articles here on Wikipedia. Because of my conflict of interest, I don't make edits myself. Instead, I upload suggestions and ask volunteer editors to review what I've done and, if everything looks okay, implement the changes.

I've recently drafted a new version of the Verizon Enterprise Solutions article, which, as you can see, is quite short. You can view my draft in my userspace, and I posted a brief description of it at Talk:Verizon Enterprise Solutions.

If you have time, do you think you might be able to review my draft and move it over to replace the current, short article if seems acceptable?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This has been done. VZBob (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Greyhound routes[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you could help expand the list of greyhound routes because I feel that people don't know much at all about the bus services that greyhound provides. Also, it would be great if the infobox for the greyhound bus routes were customized for greyhound, e.g. adding restroom availability, and perhaps more info about rest stops, meal stops, etc. I've been on greyhound a number of times and would have liked to have a wiki article for the routes I traveled. Thanks in advance for any help! Jay (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been longstanding consensus here that individual bus routes are not notable and should not have individual articles. List of Greyhound routes is sufficient coverage. The sort of details about rest stops and meal stops you mention is clearly against the policy WP:NOTTRAVEL and doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. So, I decline to aid such an effort, as I think it is wasted and is not something is support in any fashion. oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States telephone companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SNET. 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) 09:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello - I found another new vandalistic post on the SummerSlam article, it's been ongoing for some time. But this time it was done by a user who you apparently had warned previously, so, I followed up with a message on their talk page. I also undid their edit on the SummerSlam page; the event is Sunday, so, there might be lots of that type of activity that night. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Offensive language and misinformation[edit]

Firstly, let me say that I think your comments such as "Cut fucking the crap", "promotional bukkshit", and other offensive language is just that, offensive, not to mention unprofessional, and completely unwarranted. You have clearly not studied the topics you so strongly feel the need to "correct" before tearing apart a page, or maybe leaving a message on a Talk page, or MAYBE even editing without the sailor-mouthed "editorials" of your own. Wikipedia clearly defines ETIQUETTE and DISRUPTIVE EDITING; please look into these items.

Items to Consider[edit]

  • While "bourbon" did originate in the USA, NOT all bourbon is made in the USA.[1]
  • The link I cited was an outside link to an INDEPENDENT review of the product which made some important points, this is NOT "promotional bukkshit" as you so eloquently proposed (and might I point out your own misspelling of that last word). It speaks to the NOTABILITY of the entry (again, look at Wikipedia rules of NOTABILITY)
  • Removing the following FACTS is NOT something an editor does. The product's NAME, OWNERSHIP, and DISTINCTION (NOT a craft or vanity brand, a creation of the person discussed on the page) IS information that belongs on the page. What you removed, "The products and recipes are wholly owned by the Jesse James America's Outlaw brand and made in the [[United States of America]]." is valid and verified information.
  • To remove " The original flavored Jesse James America's Outlaw straight bourbon was the first of the three products to be introduced to consumers. Soon after, the brand's flavored bourbons (honey flavored and spiced) followed suit." is inappropriate, the timeline of the growth/expansion of the brand is factual and permissible information.
  • The neutrality dispute you have will be addressed, I will add names, projects, awards, and other information to support the FACTS. There is no reason for me to add information that is of my own opinion vs. FACT. [neutrality is disputed] I am NOT the person this page is written about and have no reason to write anything but the facts, as stated in the rules (which, I believe, also include rules against profanity, disrespect, and, harassment).
  • The distribution of the products IS an important fact AND verifiable. Wikipedia is read by people from across the globe, there is NO reason why "distributed throughout the United States" should be removed and it will be corrected as will most of the above.

Please leave this page alone as it is updated. The page is being updated by several people and some of us under the eye of professional Wikipedia Editors. If you have further dispute, please post on my talk page, send an email to me, or trust that the page is coming together nicely and just leave it off of your watch page if you cannot control your demeanor. Thank you in advance, have a good day. I will copy this entire message to Wikipedia for reference should you decide to delete it and ignore my responses and requests. Ask Molly (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you need to re-read the article you yourself try to claim as evidence for your edits. As noted at Bourbon whiskey#Legal requirements, by definition bourbon is made in the United States. No other whiskey from other countries can use the term, just as Scotch whisky is made only in Scotland. There is no reason to over emphasize the fact that it's made in the United States; that alone strikes me as promotional, as to emphasize the ownership I the brand in contrast to some majors bring owned by multinational conglomerates. What would actually be helpful is to say at what distillery it is made, as it is clearly whiskey sourced from a major distillery. There is no such place as the Jesse James Dupree distillery. So I also doubt any validity to claims of recipe ownership, and demand that there is a citation to that claim. Clearly the intent of these phrasing I these sentences is to create an image of the brand that is favorable. That is promotional and unacceptable. If need be I will tag the article as non-neutral, as the attempt to address the issue was rebuffed by an involved editor.

Secondly, the appropriateness of this material to the article is questionable at best. The article is about the musician, not the whiskey. This promotional material is truly an undue emphasis for the article.

Finally, the claim of "professional Wikipedia Editors" gives lie to your claims of neutrality. You pretty much confessed that you are a paid editor with a conflict of interest. I would advise you to read WP:PAY immediately. More importantly, with 10 years and over 25,000 edits to Wikipedia, I don't take orders from so-called "professional editors". So I'd advise you to back off, before your own confession here results in your being blocked. oknazevad (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As an unbiased onlooker, I would say that you, Oknazevad, do have a point and are right in demanding citations to verify this claim. WP:UNDUE does seem to apply here as this information is not completely necessary and has no shown reason to be included in the article. However, the way in which you worded your edit summaries, including some very crass language, was completely inappropriate and unacceptable. As a much more experienced editor than I am, I'm sure that you're familiar with WP:CIVIL. Molly is new editor and does not quite know how everything works on Wikipedia yet, so please, in the future, take the opportunity to teach someone new instead of condemning them without first knowing their intentions. Your tone was getting really threatening at the end of your response (block her, really?)--I'm disappointed that you didn't handle this better.
Molly, although you were justified in getting frustrated at Oknazevad's rude manners, sometimes you have to remember that even the most mature Wikipedia editors can get old, grumpy, and, as is apparent, forget when to shut their mouth. But most of the time, they do know their stuff, and you should listen. Don't let people push you around, but also, don't push others around just to get what you think is right done. Sometimes others do know best--and, unfortunately, you do seem to have quite a bit of a COI on this topic.
Both of you, please try to figure this out without pulling a full-scale edit war. The best way (and quickest) way to resolve this is to try to listen to each other and understand the other person's point of view, then work it out for the benefit of Wikipedia. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right. While I do believe that paid editing is against the very spirit of Wikipedia and irreconcilable with WP:NPOV, my tone was needlessly harsh and uncivil. For that I most sincerely apologize to Molly. I should always remember to assume good faith, even when I have reason to doubt it. With that said, my only edit to the article since is a minor formatting issue, and I don't plan on continuing with any other edits here, as another editor has addressed many of my POV concerns. oknazevad (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen and read most of this (I have to be at work all day) and will respond accordingly sometime tomorrow. Thank you for addressing the issues and disagreements, one thing I will say right now is, I am not a paid/professional editor as mentioned here. I do not work for, have any personal gain, or special interest on this page other than that I have done a lot of research. I will read more here late tonight and address each point. Thanks again to you both Ask Molly (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Lay Down the Swords[edit]

Please read with the knowledge that this is written with the best of intentions, without a spiteful tongue, and as to "tone", a curious, kind, somewhat confused tone should work just fine. :-) Apologies in advance for the length. After reading the input here, from both of you, I think the best way to address this is in a calm professional way without letting egos get bruised or cause anymore unnecessary flares. We will have to agree to disagree on some of these points, others will have to wait until I (or other editors) have the time to find better sources to use, still other items can be addressed quickly by laying to rest, the assumptions and threats that sparked this flame. To that end, please see the items below which I will use as a RE-starting point to frame up the page in question and get it updated.

First, Oknazevad, thank you for the apology, there is no reason to doubt my intentions when I am clearly explaining things rather than ignoring this, and I can take constructive criticism all day long...with respect. Second, for Anatasia, I understand every point you have made here except for one (and thank you for the professional input). I didn't understand is this>>>"and, unfortunately, you do seem to have quite a bit of a COI on this topic." I do not feel I have a conflict of interest;I have been studying all aspects of this since last December. Over an 8 month period,I have gained quite the education on the person, his businesses, and some personal history (although, I do need more on that last one one). I am not gaining anything from this, I am not related to the person, so I am confused as to why it is "unfortunate" to use the knowledge I have gained by study. The only thing I can think of, which I have explained, is that my writing in the past has sometimes been promotional in nature and perhaps the learning curve from one style to another is the problem, and not COI. Please let me know if this is a possibility. I have no EVIL intentions here and this has gotten quite heated, I'm just learning, not abusing any "inside info" or collecting a paycheck for this. That being said, please review the items below and I will take them to my Wikipedia adopter to use to help me along with this.

Let it Go[edit]

As mentioned above, I am NOT a paid editor, I am REALLY baffled as to where that information came from, so let's let it go. Please do not accuse me of such abuse again.

Assumptions - Oknazevad, there are a lot of assumptions being made which are unfounded, If there is something in question, please let me know before making claims against my intentions and character. I am working with a Wikipedia Adoption Program and have a great deal of faith that this will be useful going forward. These accusations can be seen by others and can damage my reputation and yours as contributors if people see them.

These are some examples of the assumptions made here along with my responses -

  • "it is clearly whiskey sourced from a major distillery" - Please support your claim that it "is clearly...", how can it be "clear" if it isn't true? It is not from a major distillery, I have seen the place myself, he just doesn't invite a lot of attention to that I suppose, I don't know, when proper source is located, it will be used.
  • "The article is about the musician, not the whiskey. This promotional material is truly" - The article is actually about a man who happens to be a musician and a businessman (to include the whiskey), somehow someone just got hung up on the whiskey part. If you look at the first paragraph, it says "businessman." Check out Sammy Hagar, musician, bar owner, reality show, and owns Cabo brand. There are no issues with Hagar's multiple interests being on his own page. This article is not about "the musician", it's about the man and all of the things and people who go along with 'the man", music, business, and otherwise.
  • "There is no such place as the Jesse James Dupree distillery. So I also doubt any validity to claims of recipe ownership" - Jesse James Distilling Co. does exist and the ownership of the recipe belongs to the company. This will be added back in when proper source is available.
  • "Clearly the intent of these phrasing I these sentences is to create an image of the brand that is favorable. That is promotional and unacceptable." - I disagree, even if the writing comes out to sound "favorable" this does not speak to intent, it is not "clearly the intent" at all. If my writing style comes out of promotional work then I need to work on my phrasing, which I believe is an acceptable thing to work through. I'm sure we have ALL seen pages with heinous errors beyond "style", this is something I clearly need to work on, it is not intentional promotion (I like the Beatles, Sam Cooke, and talk radio! I'd promote these if it were a matter of "promoting").
  • "Finally, the claim of "professional Wikipedia Editors" gives lie to your claims of neutrality. You pretty much confessed that you are a paid editor with a conflict of interest. I would advise you to read WP:PAY immediately." - Again, I am NOT a paid editor and the accusation is baseless, please let's leave the attacks aside, it isn't productive. A person cannot "pretty much confess" anyway, that's like being "a little pregnant", <<<trying to find SOME humor here.
  • "More importantly, with 10 years and over 25,000 edits to Wikipedia, I don't take orders from so-called "professional editors". So I'd advise you to back off, before your own confession here results in your being blocked." - While your contributions to Wikipedia are impressive in numbers, they should not be used as a weapon against those of us who come after you. Instead of beating me with your Wikipedia resume, assuming anyone has given you "orders", or advising me to "back off" of a confession that never happened, and threatening to block me, why not help instead of unleashing this fury?

Learn a Thing or Two[edit]

I have great hopes that I will learn from this experience and future experiences. By following sound advice of experienced and professional editors such as the two of you, I hope to become a better Wikipedia contributor. It is not in my nature to be presumptuous, disrespectful, or ignorant of the fact that even on topics I have studied a great deal, there is someone out there who knows more than I. It is through my own hard work and utilizing the power of other people's experience that I become more educated. In short, if I want to learn, I know the best sources are those who have gone before me. I will continue to be respectful, even in this situation, I will take Anastasia's advice on both ends, I will pay attention to more experienced writers but I will not be pushed around. I sincerely hope all of this can be laid to rest now that we have each taken the opportunity to respond. I learn by watching, doing, and asking and that is how I intend to proceed. I hope that you can take to heart what I have had to say without any misgivings; I apologize for the long note but, I feel these are important points that needed to be addressed for the sake of maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and to diffuse the situation so we can all move on with our goals. I wish you both well and thank you for reading. Ask Molly (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Molly's Mind: Thank you for fully expressing your point of view, Molly! I believe that both Oknazevad and I are kind of over this at this point, and have completely understood you. Oknazevad has already apologized, and that should be sufficient. The way you were editing did made it seem that you had some COI on the topic, but you have apparently cleared all that up. Thanks for all you've done, and I sincerely hope that this never happens again. Oknazevad, I understand that Molly's response probably just makes you want to defend yourself again, but let's just drop it before this goes any further. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm all good. 'Twas a misunderstanding. Let's all just move on.oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)