User talk:Oknazevad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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. 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

Major airlines of the US - Time for page protection ?[edit]

Looking at the history it's clear to see that the page suffers every month with inappropriate edits made both by editors who don't know any better and those that should. It's not a major assault, but it's steady one, with at least a couple times a month and some months many more. It's a very focused article with a minimal amount of information that needs only to be updated once a year, so the need for unfettered access by IP users is not there (they seem to do a lot of the bad edits). I was thinking if not WP:SEMI then at least WP:PC status. You'd need to be made protected changes reviewer but that's a minor detail and easily done. Have you ever requested any of these protections for that article in the past? If not, I think it might be a good idea. What do you think?  spintendo  01:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

While it is annoying to have to revert editors that ignore the obvious sources and comments in the code, the level of disruption on the page would be judged by an admin as too insignificant to warrant even temporary semi-protection. As long as we both keep it on our watch lists so we can easily revert well-meaning but mistaken editors, it'll be fine. oknazevad (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 Works for me Face-smile.svg Thnx!  spintendo  02:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC) as a source[edit]

Hi Oknazevad. I noticed that you recently used as a source in Piltdown Man. Please note that there is general consensus that does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for biographical information, and is a poor source overall. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not add any sources to that article. I think you may have misread the edit history. oknazevad (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I misread my own contributions. I simply copied that source from the Clarence Darrow article, where it was used to establish his date of death, which is what I was doing at the Piltdown Man article to replace the cn tag. I'm sure I can find a better source quickly. oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


What do you think if this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The opening sentence strikes me as a little too strident, but it does flow pretty well and is pretty accurate. In many ways the biggest difference is tha Off-Broadway is unambiguously professional, regardless if it's commercial or non-profit, while Off-Off-Broadway is more ambiguous, with "pay", if one can call it that, that barely covers cab fare and lunch. Even in the non-profit sector the economics of running in a venue smaller than 100 seats is just not viable for fully professional operations. (And I'm not referring to just actors, but staff as well. Certainly any venue that small is not likely to have contracts with IATSE locals. But that's just this IATSE apprentice's opinion.) So the formal contract definition correlates with the reality of professional viability, but it also reflects the un-commercial intentions. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

AT&T Page comment.[edit]

I did not know that was shouting plus forgot to on my caps. I apologise.


Artificial leather?[edit]

Hello Sir, Greetings! as long as the addition in [1] i feel this is certainly not any spam. Its scientific research based authentic information (with proper citations) purely related to the topic Artificial leather. Kindly have second thought on it. Regards --Ygdes (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not been established as a product, just announced via press release. That falls under WP:NOTNEWS. One of the sources is a primary source, meaning it doesn't demonstrate notability. Plus it's WP:UNDUE, as it warrants at most a sentence, not a whole section. oknazevad (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if i am not fully satisfy with the reasons & logic behind the norms but still thanks a lot for your side explanations ... will take care ... Rgds --Ygdes (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

LIRR at Sunnyside Yard[edit]

So the Arch Street Shops and Harold Interlocking are not part of Sunnyside Yard? Because the LIRR uses those. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Harold is an interlocking on the revenue tracks that controls all across throughout the area, but is not within yard limits, and the Arch Street shops are a separate, if nearby, property which cannot even provide direct access to Sunnyside Yard. We don't actually have an article on the Arch St Shops, which is odd to me. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop removing tags without addressing the issues raised[edit]

The Traveller article is full of original research, too much to tag individually. Please stop removing the tags calling attention to those problems. Whateley23 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The tags are spurious, based on you reading far too much into the article. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
An article with no citations but extensive theoretical taxonomical and thematic structures is original research. There are hardly any citations for an article of that length, and none in some sections that describe things as factual (notably the "Key features" and "Adventures" sections, but not limited to those). The lack of supporting citations is exactly what is meant by "original research". That's not me reading anything into anything. Whateley23 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The sources seem obvious to me: the game's rulebooks. It's a matter of needing better citations, not editors creating things de novo. In short, it's the wrong tag. Now, please let's keep the discussion on one place, the article talk page, where editors who actually added the material might want to chime in. (I didn't, I just added the page to my watchlist years ago after I took a look and saw that it was horribly misformatted with completely incorrect headers in style and number.) oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar with Traveller. None of the material there is to be found in that form in the game's rulebooks. There is, for example, a list of six things that Traveller is about in the beginning of the T5 rulebook, but it doesn't match up well with the "Key features" section of the article here. Whateley23 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'd be happy to keep the discussion on that talk page. Whateley23 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rockefeller Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roxy Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources are the preferred source[edit]

Contrary to your edit summary statement here: "completely invalid understanding of primary sourcing (which is not only valid for establishing basic facts without analysis, it is completely better for credits than unreliable third party sites)" is directly contrary to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It does not say that it should be based on primary source, so switch to 3rd party sources are correct and preferred. The reversal of said edits there for are disruptive in nature ("disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia."). Spshu (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSTS and the guidelines for film and television articles. For basic facts, such as the credits of a film or television series, primary sources are not only acceptable, they are preferred for accuracy. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, repeatedly removing sourced information that's a standard part of TV series articles is what is truly disruptive. oknazevad (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Again per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, the removal of reliable sources, as a above is considered a sign of distruptive editing. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Then why do you keep removing reliably sourced information about release dates? And please actually read the film and TV guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Except you are. You have been provided quotes from guidelines that clearly state secondary source article are the preferred sources. The release date is still in the ibox. When you can read RS and PSTS with out your ability to read it the way you like I will read the film and TV guidelines which is about the time I can find them since they seem so buried right now and they do not trump RS or V. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the infobox, I'm talking about the home video section, which is standard across TV and film articles. Just because you're too lazy to actually find and read the guidelines, doesn't mean you're not in the wrong. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spshu: If you have issues with Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series), You should raise them on the talk page, it really doesn't help when it looks like you're removing sourced content. It doesn't help it splitting your comments over peoples talk pages for a specific article, it would be more help to use the article talk page to raise issues, thanks. Govvy (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oknazevad, quit with the personal attacks that is a sign of losing the argument.
@Govvy:, your behavior (act contrary to the more basic rules) is not an issue with the article there for properly direct at you and Oknazevad at your talk page. Spshu (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Spshu: My behaviour? I reverted you only once because I believe your edits are incorrect, when that happens you should goto the article talk page to explain the issues you have with an article. On evidence from your talkpage it seems you're prone to being uncivil and edit-war with other users. I suggest you either communicate correctly on the article talk-page or leave the article to other editors. Govvy (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sports teams, singular vs. plural; English variations, prior discussions[edit]

When it comes to sports teams, common American English usage employs the singular or plural depending on the team name ("United" vs. "Tigers"). Even if a team's website apparently employs a plural (e.g. DC United) - ordinary media reports do not. This rule of thumb is described, albeit obliquely, at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Plurals. So I disagree with wholesale changes to MLS team names to turn them all to plural, at least not without a general consensus on what's common, and I suppose, whose "common" controls. I've been looking around a bit for more extended discussion on this particular issue and figure there must've been some, but haven't found it; and I thought that you might be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not the one making the blanket changes, Sabbatino has been doing that. I actually reverted him in one case. I also happen to be the one who added that part of MOS:PLURALS. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Right, I know you agree, and I think he needs a consensus to make wholesale changes against what - to me anyhow - seems to be common usage. I was hoping to learn if this had been hashed out somewhere else before, so we weren't reinventing anything. I do think BTW that I'm going to open a discussion at DC United about this. Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Three Card Poker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Mississippi stud moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Mississippi stud, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)