User talk:Oknazevad

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.

Archives: 2004–2009, 2010, January–June 2011, July–December 2011, January–June 2012, July–December 2012, January–June 2013, July–December 2013, January–June 2014, July–December 2014, January–June 2015, July–December 2015, January–June 2016, July–December 2016, January–June 2017, July–December 2017, January–June 2018, June–December 2018, January–June 2019, July–December 2019

Darksaber

Don't mean to interrupt anything. You have anything to help me out over at the Mandalorian talk page for the Darksaber? It's impossible to talk sense into these guys. Any help would be appreciated. --Bold Clone 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching the discussion. Until someone edits to remove the naming of the Darksaber from the article itself, it's all just a bunch of pointless bickering. They can crow all they want, they haven't come up with anything that justifies its removal and are just making noise at this point. oknazevad (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandalorian comments

Your comment here was uncalled for. Please keep our civility guidelines in mind while editing. I know you are frustrated that the rest of us are focusing on policy and not what you want in the article, but that isn't a good reason to be rude. Be better than that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:IAR is policy too. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that is extremely frustrating, and it's frankly rude and obnoxious to imply that those who are invoking it are somehow not following policy, as you've done even here. I feel no bees to treat those who are uncivil in that fashion with a civility that they are unwilling to extend to others. Especially when the edits being called out strain AGF like the one at the lightsaber article which you made despite being fully aware from the series talk page discussion that it's hardly only one source that are identifying the Darksaber.

And that's the bottom line. When it's every single secondary source we have explicitly identifying it, for us not to because of an overstrict (and in some places outright incorrect) interpretation of policy plainly shows that policy is getting in the way of improving the article. Exactly why IAR is itself policy. And I don't need to state which rules are being ignored. The whole point of "all rules" is that regardless of which rule is getting in the way, it's being ignored, becaus sits in the way. oknazevad (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, sir. This is the bottom line: your edits here and elsewhere are inconsiderate and rude. Your excuse that you're "frustrated" isn't even an adequate excuse. You and others disagree about policy and guidelines, and your unwillingness to remain civil about it would have a pretty ugly stopping point. Please rein in your frustration and be more civil, or take a break to cool down. You will absolutely not like the third option. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who was the one who already got the page locked with a warning? Don't threaten me. I've been here a lot longer than you and have a clean block log for a reason. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The page was locked because of the back and forth of multiple editors. And brother, it is precisely because of my block log (and subsequent epiphany) that allows me let you know that the mistakes you are making now are going to pile up and come crashing down on you, man. I am not threatening you. I know the way you are acting because I have been there myself. Its a fake result you are getting, and you are doing yourself a disservice to point to your block log as indicative of you being decent and civil. Please remain calm and use all that superior experience of yours to take a longer view of disagreements in article discussions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by the removal or mischaracterization of reliably sourced material, which is vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sydney trains

Sorry I just created an account, I didn't know how to use this. If Sydney trains are considered commuter rail, than Sydney metro should be too. The Sydney metro runs along the North Suburbs and not even near the CBD. Sydney is a very spread city that has many regions such as Penrith, Cambelltown, Parramatta, Manly, Narabeen, Illawarra, Cronulla, North Sydney, North east sydney, and Sydney (Sydney is a region of the greater metropolitan city of Sydney). The reason most of these trains are above ground is because there is so much space that there is no need to elevate train lines or dig tunnels. They are all Rapid transit systems. It can get very confusing. Sydney metro is a brand name used for the self driving antonymous trains that are only one deck high. Routs like the city circle are NOT metro and are operated by Sydney Trains, and they are Rapid transit. Trains to places like Wollongong and Katoomba are different because these places are NOT part of Sydney. Some trains are Labelled the "INTERCITY FLEET" but they do not necessarily travel to other cities, THey just travel long distances to regions such as Penrith. The INTERCITY trains do travel to other cities but just because they are labelled intercity does not mean that they travel to other places. It is so complicated and I understand why you only included Sydney metro, But again, it doesnt anctually go anywhere near the CBD, At least not until 2024 when an extension is opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sydney Metro is not just branding, but reflects that it's fully grade separated and follows a headway (is, time between trains) not timetable operation, and other aspects. Please read the criteria at the list of metro systems article, and under stand that "rapid transit" is a particular class of passenger trains distinguished from other types by technical criteria. I do understand that Sydney trains have historically been akin to S-Bahns in operation because the city (however one wants to define it, being there's no real equivalent to the Greater London Authority, Tokyo Metropolitan Government of other similar overarching government for the conurbation) has never really had a true metro line before, but they still don't constitute a metro system (note we don't include German S-Bahns, either). And just because the new line hasn't reached the CBD yet doesmt make it any less metro in standards. Most importantly, though, is this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here, so many editors can discuss this. We're more likely to find a consensus that way. I will say this, though: welcome aboard! oknazevad (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I figured out how to talk on the article and have written a response, thanks for the warm welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please remove your comment

Revert your comment immediately. In case you forgot, you promised to not post in the related pages, and you have done so less than 5 days after promising not to. If the are not removed within the hour, I will seek your immediate block for violating your agreement. This will serve as your only warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I said I would not edit the article. I never said I would not edit the talk page. But frankly your threat here isn't worth the headache. I'll remove it. I will also plainly state you are to never edit my talk page again, and any such edits will be seen as harassment. oknazevad (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Exandria

And now you know why I was trying to add Exandria. You’re welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.240.151 (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You were trying to add it prematurely. Unless you have some inside info, making you the primary source of the info, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait, really? That would mean a celebrity couldn’t alter their own Wikipedia page because they are the primary source of data. Wikipedia is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.240.151 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, really. Conflicts of interest and maintaining a neutral point of view are hard to keep up with if a person can write their own article. oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Canadian whisky

I have opened a section on the talk page regarding creating a criteria for listing distilleries on that Canadian whisky list Talk:Canadian whisky#Criteria for Distilleries and Brands section. While the list currently doesn't have an inclusion criteria beyond the WP defaults of verifiability, you have twice removed the Wayne Gretzky Distillery, so you seem to be enforcing a criteria that is unknown to me. It would help if you wrote for us what your criteria is so we can edit the article accordingly. Thanks.

Also, I must express some frustration with your editing on that article, specifically regarding your edit here and its edit summary, you simply removed referenced content relevant to the topic. That is not "improvements". Since I started watchlisting and editing this article, taking it from this to this, these have been your edits:

• adding a 2-sentence subsection on smuggling referenced to a hotel's website,
• reverting the sentence on 'what Canadian whiskies are' back to 'what they used to be',
• reverting back to that same passage over top a more elaborate description,
• removing the descriptor "caramel" and replacing "subsidiary" with "has a controlling share",
• removing rum as an example since it is not always white,
• removing triticale as an example grain and deleting a hidden text note to editors, and
• removing one of the distillery's former names. These edits are just removals of relevant information or reverts to previous, less informed versions. These are edits, yes, but not improvements. I would like to further build up the article but it is frustrating and discouraging when another editor keeps picking out relevant contextual pieces or reverting to the original version. maclean (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page regarding the Gretzky brand, but I'll also explain further these edits here.

• • The removal of the smuggling section is plainly a poor choice. Canadian whisky's prominence in its largest consumer market is in large part because of smuggling during prohibition, so to not mention that at all is simply inconceivable. Could the source be better, sure, but don't remove that important historical fact.
  • The second is about context. The passage is about the historical origin of using the word "rye" as a synonym for Canadian whisky, not how they're made today.
  • Again, it's about flow. Answering the question as to why Canadian whisky is commonly called "rye whisky" even when there's little rye in the actual manufacturing is important and should be covered early.
  • "Caramel color is a specific food additive and does not come from barrel aging. And a "subsidiary" is by definition majority (if not wholly) owned by the parent company; Pernod's stake in Corby is about 48%, the largest share and enough to effective control the company, but not a majority. Both these changes were made because they were technical error corrections.
  • Rum isn't always white, that's just a fact. In fact it comes in many different barrel aging points. And it's popular in different ways at those different points. It's just a really poor choice to use as an example there.
  • I've never actually seen triticale in Canadian whisky. Perhaps it is used by a small producer on a near-experimental level, but it's rare. Then again, the same could be said for triticale as a whole. It's just not a common grain in any use. Therefor, listing it sticks out like a sore thumb, and it's removal doesn't impact the overall meaning of the sentence. The hidden note was confusing, contradictory to the visible text, and contradicted by the actual reference to the sentence (I checked my physical copy of the book).
  • Frankly I think we should ditch all the former names except maybe Schenley for Valleyfield (because it's still commonly known as that as the Schenley name is still on the building, but I can see leaving them all in, too. That said, they need to be sourced, and an incomplete list is pointless. I think I specifically took out the old name for the Black Velvet Distillery because it was an incomplete list of former names; it was at one point officially called the "Lethbridge Distillery", which is unmentioned at all, so I didn't see the point of including any old names. oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Red Bull Brasil logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Red Bull Brasil logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

ABC

Fifth revert in 24 hours. Would you like to self-revert? 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverting serial sock puppetry is a valid exemption from WP:3RR. Or are you now claiming that you didn't admit to sock puppetry here? oknazevad (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I missed this edit[1] which I am happy with. As such, I reverted you. I then spotted the same thing twice and self-reverted OWN edit which was DUPLICATE. I hope that makes it clear to you. Also, your summary mentions nothing of alleged sockpuppetry but merely pushes your own viewpoint. So, now that is clarified, would you like to self-revert and continue on talk? 81.137.62.113 (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Only if the material is left out while the discussion is ongoing, per WP:BRD. The material was added boldly, and once reverted it should not be re-added without discussion, especially since it was challenged as unsourced. oknazevad (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

All right I think you're missing a point. You seem to be attuned to Wikipedia's policies and so I will make this simple. Right now, you stand in breach of WP:3RR which you are defending on the assumption of my account and one other being operated by the same person. If you are correct, then you are not in breach, but if you are wrong, then you are eligible for sanctioning. Self-reverting is not damaging, and after all, if you are correct in your "doubts" then there are recent changes patrollers who will immediately review and pick up on the mistake thus restoring your "original" version. Likewise the article is accessible around the clock and just about anyone can say, "hey this isn't sourced, I'm removing it", or "I will place a citation tag here". So for the last time, choice is yours, do you wish to self-revert? 81.137.62.113 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You know, I knew there was something about this that smelled fishy. Then it hit me. You're already banned from posting here, and failure to abide by that is harassment. Plus looking at your edit history where you've never even looked at the article before and the fact that your IP just got off a one year block for socking and intentionally disruptive editing makes me fully convinced you're full of shit and this is clearly a pathetic attempt at hounding me in an effort to get revenge for my part in your block. Don't post here again. And don't re-add the material to the article or you will find that IP again blocked for a year or more. oknazevad (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to help, I opened this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Lapel

Hi Oknazevad!

Thank you for your kind edit. It might seem obvious for some contributors, but most Wikipedians simply revert good faith edits with unpleasant or unnecessary and sometimes aggressive comments. With you, that is most certainly not the case, it seems like at least you acknowledge my effort. I have taken the liberty to at least restore this phrase, as I really think it is very relevant and does not go into excessive detail: A notch-less lapel jacket is called a Teba.

Regarding the other detailed analysis of types of notched lapels, I suppose maybe we could explore the possibility of adding it elsewhere, in some other section or even a new section!

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback!

--Cantabrucu (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lightsaber edits, again

I would ask that you refrain from making edits like this in the Lightsaber article. The reason we have had to address this before is that you are utilizing a consensus that has not yet emerged or taken a final form, and bears all the earmarks of seeking an end-run around The Mandalorian article's (non)use of the Darksaber. As well, you have made pledges to abstain from (what you are certainly aware are) controversial edits in Star Wars-related articles for a few months, upon pain of block. I am not going to revisit the reasons for your recent block, but I think you understand that you cannot seem to edit there without civility issues. Please avoid them and stay away from these articles for a little while. Trust that there are many other editors who will endeavor to keep the articles even and representative of not only consensus, but of sources and our rules. I know that you don't consider me fair, but understand that once a lasting consensus emerges in Mandalorian, I will certainly not interfere with the implementation fo that consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reopened discussion on the article talk page. Address my concerns there. There is nothing truly controversial about simplifying wording and adding verifying sources unless you make it so.

Also, please stop assuming bad faith here or in any related discussion. I do not see or intend any "end run", and truly do not appreciate your assumption of bad faith on my part. Between that and the slippery slope fallacy, I don't think this is an area you can edit in objectively, to be honest. Your own comments at Talk:The Mandalorian regarding Star Wars fans would easily earn you a topic ban, I would think. I'd advise you to edit in other areas before such a ban is required. oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, Oknazevad; I probably won't be editing any articles about Star Wars (or Star Trek) fans at any point. Disliking the zealotry with which these fans approach "their" franchise is what I object to, not the franchise itself. Maybe it is a slim distinction for some to make; to me, the difference is enormous.

I have responded to your points in the Lightsaer article discussion; you make several good points; the (perhaps frustrating) main point is, when reverted, reverting again is the wrong step. Heading to discussion allows for collaborative editing to find the best common ground within our framework, which means more stable articles. It took you a beat to realize that, and I appreciate your growth in that way. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Benji Dunn

You made a good point for his notability here, which is why this article is not at AfD. But until such an expansion is done, it doesn't show notability clearly, hence the {{notability}} tag should be there, to motivate someone - you, or another editor - to address it by expanding this. I hope you can see a difference between a deletion proposal and a tag indicating existence of a surmountable issue. Would you mind restoring that tag, which should remain there until the article is expanded to address the issue it describes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned with that tag's in this case. That tag is really meant as much to indicate that the article doesn't demonstrate notability at all, not that it needs improvement. I wish there were a tag calling for more sources to demonstrate notability, as opposed to the tag that essentially states there is none present at all, like the difference between the {{tl:unreferenced}} and {{tl:more citations needed}} tags. As it is, the in-universe tag is a good tag. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hartford Line

Amtrak owns the physical corridor, but they lost the bid for the operations contract, and so the Hartford Line is not run by Amtrak. I interviewed the head of agency by phone. Theblindsage (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)