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, July–December 2014, January–June 2015

Talk-page message[edit]

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azeroth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrousel (booklet), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What is needed for a consensus, according to you?[edit]

How do you mean when you write "No consensus for merge after 7+ months", when the two users who have said anything about it at Talk:Boilersuit both wanted the merge? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

More a case that no one acted on it for 7 months. It was a stale tag, either way. There comes a point where if someone proposes a merge, and there's no objection, then they should actually perform the merge. Just tagging it and expecting someone else to actually do the work is rude. So the tag was stale, and therefore removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Then that is what you should have said. That opinion I can understand, even if I don't really agree. Also, there are merge templates around which are much older than this. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I misstated my reasons in my edit summary, defaulting to a boilerplate message I've used before. That was my mistake. But the underlying opinion remains. If someone tags a page for a merge, and no one objects, then that person shouldn't just expect someone else to do the work. oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Crocodile attack Madagascar entry removed[edit]

Hi, I saw you removed my entry about the Madagascar's deaths on the crocodile attack page. You wrote "not notable, routine source". Honestly, I don't understand why it's less notable than many other attacks listed in the same section. Many sources linked to other entries do not even described the attacks with more than one or two sentences, so it seems to me it's also routine coverage. Why three people's deaths in the same river in the span of three days covered by several regional newspapers would not be notable? It's not because it does not appear in a big western newspaper that it is not notable I think. So I'll be glad to have more information about your decision to revoke my addition. Thanks, --Priyankee (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the attacks were merely coincidental; they weren't connected to each other by anything other than just happening to be close in location and date. Otherwise they were just the sort of attack that happens in crocodile infested waters multiple times a year. Heck, the victims weren't even named. It's pretty much the definition of routine coverage, sadly. Some of the other entire probably should be trimmed, too. The whole section is too weighted towards more recent events, anyway. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Airline Hub[edit]

Hello, thanks for letting me know that hub was not equal to headquarters! This type of edit war I had been involved in last month, the user told me that hub meant headquarters. So that's why I thought that, thanks for letting me know! But I removed Vueling as it has a base at Amsterdam and is not a spoke carrier. RMS52 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. The editor or could have saved us all a lot of trouble if they just added the link. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North American Soccer League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent New York Red Bulls revert[edit]

When reverting vandalism, be sure to warn the individual that their behaviour is not appropriate. It makes it easier to get a block if it continues. I have seen too many closures for insufficient warnings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I was in the middle of leaving the warning when you did. Actually got an edit conflict. Considering I went straight to the vandal's talk page as soon as my revert was saved, you didn't exactly give me enough time to leave the warning. (Also, I tend to jump to level two warnings for obvious malicious vandalism, such as this one). oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gluten-free whisky[edit]

The Celiac Support Association advises that some celiacs react to whisky, for reasons explained here: http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenfreefoodshoppin1/f/Is-Whiskey-Gluten-Free.htm Your assertion that "all whiskey is gluten-free" is debatable for perfectly good scientific reasons. I don't agree that that it's "pointless puffery" to add a reference to pure buckwheat whisky as an incontrovertably gluten-free alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammbeck (talkcontribs) 07:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Gluten is plain and simply too heavy to be carried by the vapors in distillation. Any other statement is just bad science. If any celiacs have issues with whiskey it's likely due to a sympathetic allergy to cogeners that carry over from the malted barley (or wheat for wheated bourbons). But it's not the actual presence of gluten. Gluten does not enter into the spirit itself, and remains with the spent mash.
Regardless, I also had big issues with the phrasing. Too promotional. Read like an advertising pitch, frankly, not a dispassionate description. So at the very least a re-phrasing is needed. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and advice. I have re-phrased and removed any explicit link between gluten and any allergic response to whisky. Tammbeck (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Eastern wolf[edit]

Thanks for your suggestion to keep the taxonomic/genetic controversy in the main section on the eastern wolf. Please note that the controversy is now settled with COSEWIC changing the status to a Threatened independent species, C. lycaon. The two journal reviews on the red wolf that you removed are highly pertinent to the eastern wolf as they note that they may be conspecific - however, I have rephrased and shortened my previous discussion on this to focus more on the eastern wolf as an independent species. Both reviews discuss the Algonquin Provincial Park eastern wolves not just red wolves. Schmiebel (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Fox Chase Line[edit]

I know you've been active on Fox Chase Line for a long time. Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) has been banned for sockpuppetry and there's now a major copyright infringement investigation underway at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. My initial spot checks revealed that much of what he added was copied verbatim from other sources (the first two major diffs I checked, [1], [2], are word-for-word). The simplest approach would be roll back the entire article prior to his involvement on the presumption that everything he added is a copyright violation, but I appreciate how disruptive that would be. The alternative is to attempt to identify and remove all text that he originally added which is still a copyright violation. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised by any of it. I always suspected Tomatosoup97 was a sock, but I find it completely laughably incompetent that he'd respond to a warning about sock puppetry with his new block-evading sock. What a maroon. Frankly, he's been POV-pushing for so long, I'm glad he's gone. I'm also not surprised he turned out to be a plagiarist. Do what you see fit. I'll take a look as it goes. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)