Open main menu

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

Contents

Date formats in citationsEdit

Hi Oknazevad,

Please note that yyyy-mm-dd date format is perfectly proper in citations per WP:CITESTYLE, and thus there was no need for the date format changes you made to Ice resurfacer in this edit that were in yyyy-mm-dd format. The format you changed it to is also a valid one so there is no reason to revert these changes, however policy on citation style states that one should not change from one valid citation style to another unless there is a good reason for it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The entire article was inconsistent in its dates. Yes, some refs had the valid YYYY-MM-DD format. Others had dmy, some mdy. Some havd the invalid use of abbreviated months. Body text was mixed as well. I just made the entire article consistent. That is a valid reason for a change. oknazevad (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

About Caribbean Series articlesEdit

Hello Oknazevad. The correction has been made. Thank you for your attention on this matter. MusiCitizen (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of amendments in the article on BrandyEdit

Be so kind as to explain why my corrections with sources were deleted? Василий Петрович ом (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

AT&T pageEdit

Is there something that can be done regarding the AT&T page editing that is taking place by editors insisting upon “merging” the AT&T Corp. and AT&T pages without having a true discussion? One of them has warned me to stop “warring” with edits while their justification used to edit the page to have AT&T Corp.’s dates is that “well I figure they’ll be merged so I might as well just do it”. They have never proposed a formal merger of the pages. A similar issue occurred within the last couple years regarding someone’s insistence that AT&T of today was the same company as Southwestern Bell, their original landline division. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems like something for WP:ANEW. oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In light of the fact that a discussion has begun on the topic, I will hold off on that. However, there has not been an “official” merger proposal via tagging the involved pages. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

BrandEdit

Are brand name products better than store brand? Benjamin (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Far too broad of a question to answer categorically. also, Wikipedia talk pages are not for chatting about the subjects, but discussing article content. Please remember that in the future. oknazevad (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
How would you suggest narrowing the question? Benjamin (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that this isn't the place to ask that question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a q&a site. oknazevad (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The question is relevant to the improving of the article. Benjamin (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that the private label article doesn't already cover it. It's a better question for that talk page than here, though. Regardless, it's also not something that can be categorically answered. Too many differences between products. oknazevad (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it at least certainly sometimes the case? Benjamin (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. And sometimes not. It cannot be stated categorically. And my opinion means nothing. Only what's in reliable sources. Frankly, I don't think you get it. I don't want to have this conversation on my talk page. Please stop posting here about this. oknazevad (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Production MusicEdit

Hi - I was a little discouraged by your "not helpful" "link farm" comments. Composers of production music aren't widely known about, as by its nature the music is somewhat anonymous, composed for general purpose and royalty free use. But there is a lot of interest in who these composers were/are. Without the details this article is somewhat abstract. I searched Wikipedia itself and other sources to find the most prominent examples from the history of production music, and these links could be used by readers to explore the topic in more depth.

One solution would be to add a separate page listing production music composers and link to it from here. This was several hours work and I don't really want it wasted. I have been researching some of these composers and adding pages on them - ie King Palmer - as they are under appreciated. However, nothing is more frustrating that adding contributions that will be deleted, in what often seems an arbitrary way.

There are many of course many other problems with this article, and this was a first step towards revamping the main text. But perhaps I should walk away. Sfjohna (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

On looking more closely, I see you also deleted the new sources I uncovered and put in "Further Reading". Important, relevant and useful to anyone researching this subject. Sfjohna (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I probably should have been more judicious, but the links were definitely not a good idea, per WP:ELNO. The composers list has unclear inclusion criteria; that notable composers have written production music is a minor part of their careers. It may be worth mentioning, but is better presented with context and not the list format, especially when it's never going to be a complete list. That said, as separate list article with that context is a good solution, but each entry will need a reference, not just a link to the composer's article (if they have one). As for the further reading entries, those are good additions. If we can find some way to incorporate them as references in the body, that would be even better. Then we can remove the references needed tag at the top. So, I'm sorry to waste your time, but I think we can find an even better way to improve the article. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

New York CityEdit

There definitely was such conclusion, specifically that "New York City" is, both on here and everyday speech, used almost exclusively to differentiate from the state; when something says "Largest city:", nobody is going to think it means the state, therefore, the "City" is redundant. The most common name is just "New York". IWI (chat) 14:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't see that conclusion at all. Can you point to the post that summarizes such? And frankly, you seem to think that "New York City" is only a disambiguator, not a proper name. Well, you'd be wrong. It is partly an ENGVAR thing, but the name "New York City" is very much not just used when needed to differentiate from the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It was at Talk:New York City#Changing infobox title. IWI (chat) 14:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It basically is just a DAB though, like "New York State", although not quite as much. IWI (chat) 14:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
That discussion is entirely about the top of the article's infobox and has zilch to do with how to present the name in other articles. You're incorrectly generalizing. oknazevad (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It was changed on the basis that "New York City" is just a DAB name. IWI (chat) 15:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. If it were, the article would be at "New York (city)". It is a very common, slightly longer, alternate name, not merely a disambiguator. Again, it might be different in the UK, but in American English using the longer form for NYC is not only used when contrasting with the state. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know, but the most common name is "New York" (which is why the infobox is headed that way), so that should be used, except when it is unclear whether you’re referring to the state or city. I only added it where it was painfully obvious it wasn’t referring to the state. And of course they’re not going to put it at "New York (city)" when a more natural alternative exists. IWI (chat) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The conclusion that the primary name is "New York" does not just apply to the infobox title. I don’t know what makes you think that, but please listen to me. Reverting against consensus violates the consensus policy. This wasn’t even a weak consensus on that fact, it was nearly unanimous. IWI (chat) 18:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

To quote Station1 in that discussion, "I agree. The city's name is "New York". The appended "City" is used for disambiguation purposes, both in our article title and in real life". IWI (chat) 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
"And in real life" is the key phrase. Any again, there was no consensus to apply that discussion to any other article or any other part of Wikipedia. If you want to expand that, please start a discussion somewhere with wide notification to draw a broad consensus. Don't extrapolate from one discussion on one talk page about one part of one article a general principal. Oh, and reverting again instead of leaving it as status quo ante bellum is plain edit warring. oknazevad (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  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. IWI (chat) 13:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move of Sprite (soft drink) back to Sprite (drink)Edit

At WP:RM I've requested that your bold move of Sprite (drink) to Sprite (soft drink) be reverted. You may wish to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Sprite (soft drink)#Requested move 26 January 2019. Thanks, 94.21.204.175 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment requestEdit

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones and Beach station. Cards84664 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

  Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

CVN-80Edit

Hey, just read your edit summary here, and not that I'm doubting you, I was wondering if there was source for that. Thanks - wolf 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably poorly phrased on my part. The inclusion of CVN-6 was only added a few weeks ago by an IP, and all previous Emterprises only list the immediate user of the name, not all of them. It strikes me that we either include the most recent predecessor or all nine previous US Navy ships by that name. For the sake of compactness, I chose the single-ship option. oknazevad (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably worth a little research (I'll certainly be reading up on it). It would be interesting to learn why the name was carried over for those first 9 ships, going back to the age of sail and the HMS ships that also carried the name all the way back to 1705 and L'Enterprise from France.
But as for the modern day, and USN carriers, my money would be on CV-6, and her near legendary heroics in the Pacific War, as the namesake. That and she the the most decorated ship of WWII, and only second all time behind the sub USS Parche (SSN-683). Should make for some interesting study. Cheers - wolf 00:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Look who's backEdit

67.87.196.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm combing their edits now. Cards84664 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert them all as sockpuppetry to avoid an indefinite block. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Champ CarEdit

Thanks for your edits to Champ Car, I've been trying to clean it up for a bit and it's great to have some revision! I've played around with the photos and the dated F1 comparison section, am open to any collaboration. Knoper (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Women's championshipEdit

Based on this edit [1]. Where does it specifically state in that source that it cannot be defended on NXT UK? The guidelines of WP:PRIMARY are clear you cannot infer anything from a source, and it does not say it cannot, it only says where they plan to. That is why being vague and saying it can be defended across brands is 100% accurate. You cannot say that it is incorrect. But you cannot based on that source say it wont be on NXT UK, unless you infer from the source, which is WP:OR. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The reference, primary or not, is very specific. To state anything other than what it specifically states is the inference. I will not revert (as the vague wording is itself not an issue), but I think this should be discussed at the article talk page or the pro wrestling project to get wider input. oknazevad (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dodge D seriesEdit

See this search, for example. Most series are not proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at that, once you get past the absurdly irrelevant and unreliable entries, I see that the majority of sources are actually using capital S. Not worth fighting over, though. oknazevad (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

AEWEdit

Provide a source supporting your statement immediately. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"later consensus at WT:NBA, as the WNBA exists now,"Edit

Where in the archive? I can't find it after spending about 20 minutes looking. Thanks! - Immigrant laborer (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There was some in previous talk page discussions about the WNBA at both WT:NBA and WT:BASKETBALL. It was something of a sideline in a discussion about merging the former WNBA player infobox with the general infobox, where the discussion turned towards why the WNBA is a summer league and the desire of owners not to directly compete with their own men's league. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

File:IATSE logo.pngEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ROH World Championship belt.pngEdit

Thanks for uploading File:ROH World Championship belt.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said in removing the tag, the belt design is absolutely copyrighted (by the promotion), any image of it is inherently a jon-free file, and no free version can possibly be created. Additionally, the idea that it is not a minimal use is also incorrect, as it is an image of he whole object. I have removed the tag as I dispute the speedy deletion. If you still think it is not a valid fair use, you'll have to FFD the file. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see my explanation in the section below. Levdr1lp / talk 18:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

On copyrightsEdit

The belt photograph has (presumably) two copyright claims-- the belt design itself and the photograph of the belt. Since you could conceivably create or obtain the rights to a photograph of the belt, the non-free photo you uploaded is absolutely replaceable w/ a free version w.r.t. the photographer's copyright claim. So it would still be a derivative of a non-free 3D creative work, but you would have one less copyright to account for. I know it may seem confusing, but it's true. Levdr1lp / talk 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Except the image was also work-for-hire for the promotion, and the photographer has no copyright claim. It's still cannot be a free use file, and therefore is irreplaceable. This is not new to us; there's precedent for fair use of these images throughout the articles on pro wrestling championships, and they've been proposed for deletion before but the fair-use nature has been upheld. oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a direct link to the original file? Levdr1lp / talk 18:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It's on this page (Wildcat Belts is the company that built the belt for ROH, as noted in the FUR.) The image itself has the background cropped out for clarity. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, is there a specific case you case at FFD you can link to? Levdr1lp / talk 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The most relevant previous discussion was here, which was closed as keep. That version was later deleted because it's an outdated design that was later replaced and only the most recent design is kept for use as the infobox image for the article on the championship, but the underlying principle, that title belt images are appropriate fair use and that there's no ability to have a free equivalent as the designs are copyright holds true. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with the "underlying principle", however. I think it's probably worth revisiting at FFD if for no other reason that to reaffirm the existing consensus. In my view -- and this is based on my own experience dealing w/ non-free files, both at FFD and elsewhere -- the belt photograph almost certainly has two separate copyrights, regardless as to whether or not the photo was work-for-hire. In a work-for-hire situation, my understanding is that the copyright merely transfers from the hired party (the photographer) to the hiring party (business, organization, etc.). So the copyright for the photo still exists. It's just not held by the photographer. Levdr1lp / talk 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The uploader of the file discussed in the case you linked to is the same individual who took the photo, whereas your upload is a photo taken by whoever runs (or was hired by) the Wildcat Belts website. You or someone else could conceivably take a photo of either the original belt or one of its replicas, and that's why the photo is replaceable. I really don't think the discussion applies here. Stefan2 argued that other file did not satisfy WP:NFCCP#8; I'm arguing your upload does not satisfy WP:NFCCP#1 & WP:NFCCP#3a. (Bear in mind that -- in every case -- the file must meet every single non-free criterion.) Levdr1lp / talk 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:East Bay Times front page Nov 1 2018.jpgEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment on userEdit

Hi. The user you warned, Onetwothreeip, is very fond of extended 'discussion', so I am cautioning you about what you might be getting into :-) Have a good day. cygnis insignis 09:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a very strange comment. I reply once when someone responds to me, neither you or the recipient of this comment are exceptions to that. Very strange behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Oknazevad".