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, January–June 2020, July–December 2020, January–June 2021, July–December 2021, January–June 2022, July–December 2022, January–June 2023, July–December 2023

Atari Panther Image
Contributor Sketch is based on same diagram that the 3D model is based on, it is not 'properly historical'. Undid your revision to the Panther article. If you'd like to discuss, the talk page has links to all the 3D models that were created based on the same diagram the 'contributor sketch' was. Please do not revert back to the outdated sketch again. Thanks. TheEmperorAnt (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The sketch looks like it's an obvious sketch. The 3D model looks too much like it was a physical prototype. The article has had enough issues with fake info, even if the model is based on the same diagram as the sketch, it contains many assumptions (like color scheme) that extrapolate beyond the diagram. Frankly, I'd rather leave an image entirely. The console was never produced. It shouldn't include an image that makes it look like it was. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very valid opinion, and I agree with you. I was unable to get the Panther Design Diagram into wikimedia, maybe you can? I think the actual diagram would be a far better image than the sketch or the 3D model. Thanks for the sensible reply. TheEmperorAnt (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Decay
Not trying to cause issues with you, but it is Rosemary and Havok's third reign as partners. Now granted the second reign was under a different name (and with a third "Frebird" member), but it is the third time that the two women held the titles together as partners, thus it is accurate to say this is their third reign as a team, regardless of what names they were using at any particular time. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No, because the presence of Taya made it a different team. This is Decay, which is not the Death Dollz. Different name, different membership, different number of members, different team. Including in parentheses that Rosemary and Havok have held the titles their respective numbers each is Al correct, but this is only the second time that the pair of Rosemary and Havok on their own have held the titles. oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How does Taya make it a different team? Did Crush make Demolition a different team? Did mixing and matching Big E, Kofi, and Woods make New Day a different team.  The important thing is Rosemary and Havok have been championship partners three times, that is a fact.  In one of those reigns they had a third partner, true enough, but the main two were still champions together.  Doesn't matter what name they use, the main thing is the two women in question (Rosemary and Havok) have held the titles together as partners three times, regardless of gimmick, or if they had a third wheel during one of those reigns. Vjmlhds (talk)  19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes it a different team in my mind. Only when the two of them were in Death Dollz was the Freebird rule used, so comparisons to other trios using it don't really hold up. That they were also in Death Dollz is covered by the listing if their individual numbers of reigns and the footnote at the list article. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh...not a hill worth dying on. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Re cites in Whisky
You're right, I should have dug deeper before tagging them, I was just going by the broad/strong consensus against use of blogspot - but it clearly carves out space for subject-matter experts. I do think the section is overcited, as the OED should be canonical and all that's needed; however, after looking at the talk page and some of the battleground history, I assume it's heavily cited in response to past nonsense. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed. One of the things pages regarding whisk(e)y have had to deal with are the repeated addition of common urban legends and myths. Keeping things to the real facts is easier when experts are cited. It's calmed down quite a bit from even a few years ago, likely because the inclusion of the correct facts in the articles has killed some of those myths. oknazevad (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Midway debacle
Ok so what about for games back when Midway was still publishing Arcade games.

Do we put Midway Home Enetertainment for the console versions back when they were still doing Arcade era? If you want I can change all MHE links back to Midway Games for games that were released after Midway exited the arcade business.

And bad linking really??? NakhlaMan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ideally we'd just put "Midway" as that's what the company was commonly called during its existence; the only reason the article is at Midway Games is for WP:NATDIS purposes because there's many other meanings of "midway". In fact, I'd say what we really should be doing is formatting all links like.
 * Having one division to handle arcade machine manufacturing and distribution and another one to handle home game publishing was standard practice, one that still is used by the handful of companies that are still in both markets, like Sega. It's needlessly pedantic to list specifically the home publishing division. The company's divisional structure is too trivial of a detail for such a list, and it's not like the arcade division also published home games creating a need for disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm thats not a bad idea.
 * Maybe we should just let it say Midway. Like you said which is Midway.
 * Maybe will do that instead.
 * Thanks for the reply man you just given me a great and way better idea!
 * Appreciate it! NakhlaMan (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Be polite
You should apologize to me for your rudeness. be quick

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Pool-Billiard_Association&diff=1209777070&oldid=1209776996

Sorry, but edit warring frustrates me. I said plainly why your edits were improper and against the guideline, and yet you kept restoring them. Please listen to experienced editors and read the guidelines before bloating the articles with unneeded and incorrect links. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conf%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Europ%C3%A9enne_de_Billard&oldid=1209766032#CEB_Championships

this section is correct. i read guidelines. this section have not problem.

also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_Mondiale_de_Billard&oldid=1209731279#Events

It is not my fault that there are not many articles in English. You say you have a lot of experience, why don't you create them? Because I spent a lot of time organizing and creating links.

I have to check the rest of the returns as well. Only a small part of my edits were wrong, but you deleted them in bulk. I checked some references. I was wrong and I corrected it, but you returned it to the location of the following item:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Carom_Billiard_Confederation&oldid=1209732061#Members

i add correct reference.

70 percent of my edits were completely correct. Part of it was problematic and I agree. Meanwhile, my work continued to complete it. I put the new reference instead of the wrong one, but it's clear that you didn't check at all and deleted everything in bulk. Return all and correct, add and delete mistakes.


 * Please sign your posts.


 * Also, please see WP:WTAF. Adding long lists of red links doesn't really help.


 * The other issues were pretty big. It doesn't help that you don't use edit summaries at all. Every addition, deletion, or reorganization needs an edit summary, or else other editors aren't going to know what your intent is. oknazevad (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ed Nordholm
To clear things up, here is all the Anthem top brass. Nordholm is CCO, overseeing all of Anthem's properties as a bigwig. Basically, he got promoted from just merely focusing on TNA to getting to look over all of Anthem's toys. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Might be a bit if "kicked upstairs" with that. Either way, yeah, he should be listed. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ignorant revision
you removed all of my edits. if you think it's redundant and messy, re-organize it. i took the liberty of restoring my version so you can do so. L Esm12 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Nothing ignorant about it. Your edits literally list in rather poor and ugly format info that's already in the article. oknazevad (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(WWE) Universal Championship
Hey, man. I totally get your logic for the naming convention of the Universal Championship (and the mid-card championships too.) I prefer the same too. However, I am curious as to why the same logic doesn't apply to the World Heavyweight Championship and the Women's World Championship. Siladitya Dash (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Because those explicitly leave off the WWE to contrast with the WWE Championship and the WWE Women's Championship. Just had been done with the 2002–2013 incarnation of the WHC. oknazevad (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Supporters' Shield trophy.jpeg


The file File:Supporters' Shield trophy.jpeg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about a harassment vandal
Who is this long-term vandal that harasses you and may say a name starting with D and ending with Z? An example would be a filter log for a sock of said vandal here. Feel free to explain who they are, or email me if this is private.

I may email one of the edit filter managers to create a private filter to track that vandal. Thanks, Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  21:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Tell me why you'd like to know. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly and strictly for anti-vandalism/patrolling purposes; since you disabled your email, feel free to email me if this is a private matter. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing really private; I have never actually had an off-Wikipedia interaction with the person. Just one of those things that makes me a little skittish when someone I've never interacted with and who hasn't even been on Wikipedia for a full year asks questions about. So, if you'll excuse me, I'd rather not talk about it. oknazevad (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for clarifying. Codename Noreste  🤔  talk  16:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

March 31 2024
Hello, I noticed your recent comment on the New York (state) talk page. While it's important to express your opinion, please remember to do so in a civil manner as per Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Comments like "useless rehashes of crap" are not conducive to constructive discussion. Let's strive to maintain a respectful and collaborative environment on Wikipedia. Thank you. DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Bristol (in List of NASCAR tracks)
I have revoked your deletion. For historical reasons there is a separation between dirt and paved in the lists. For this reason, oval racing tracks such as Martinsville, Hickory, North Wilkesboro and Richmond are listed twice. In their original form, these race tracks were dirt ovals and were only later paved. Bristol is of course an exception here, as the track was initially paved / concrete and later used as dirt tracks for some time. But I think it's important to have a consistent rule here. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. I'm not so sure Bristol is really equivalent to those older tracks that started as dirt tracks and were later paved, because the dirt was not only not a permanent change, it wasn't even used for both races at the track those three years where it was put in place. It was a temporary surface. Heck, I'm not so sure we can't handle the change in surface for the former site tracks that were later paved with just a footnote on a single entry. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the surface changes the characteristics of the racetrack a lot. Therefore, two separate entries are warranted. In the case of the old race tracks, the length of some of them was also changed. --Mark McWire (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess. But the same argument could be made anytime a track is repaved. Just seems redundant to me to have entirely separate entries instead of just using footnotes. oknazevad (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Trois-Rivières Aigles (2013–)
Hi, thank you for your contributions. User:70.26.114.252 is making disruptive edits, similar to those you described as a sockpuppet here. Can you tell me which SPI this is? 162 etc. (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * oknazevad (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Oknazevad&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1219789093 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logos_and_uniforms_of_the_New_York_Mets&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1219789093%7CLogos%20and%20uniforms%20of%20the%20New%20York%20Mets%5D%5D Ask for help])

Delta Center
Seems like the plans are changing,. But I wouldn't doubt that a new arena would be in the plans for the future... Roberto221 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Missed that bit. Fair enough. oknazevad (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Law & Order video games
Template:Law & Order video games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Bourbon whiskey
Maybe there is only one labeled as such in your part of the world. Branding/labeling is not the only consideration. It is a niche Bourbon typ[e. But the sources say otherwise. WP:Verifiability should suffice. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should. But we need more than one source. Trendy niche stuff that has no long-term significance is a dime a dozen, and neologisms are unencyclopedic. oknazevad (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
Hi Oknazevad! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of The Looney Tunes Show several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Port Jervis Line
Hi there.

You recently reverted my edit to Template:NJT stations navbox on 20 May 2024 about adding the Port Jervis Line onto there. I am not American, I'm from the UK, so I was unsure as if I should add it as it is operated by NJT under a contract with MNR. Shouldn't it be there if it is operated by NJT, even though it is operated under a contract with MNR? The same thing goes for the Pascack Valley Line as well as it too is operated by NJT under a contract with MNR. I was initially confused at first, sorry. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Although the Port Jervis Line is operated by NJT under contract, the physical trackage and stations between Suffern Yard and Port Jervis are MNR property, so they don't really belong in a navbox for NJT stations. In contrast the Pascack Valley Line is wholly owned by NJT, including the portion in Rockland County. Metro-North leases those stations from NJT and pays them to stop at those stations (conceivably NJT could skip those stations entirely while still using Woodbine Yard as they own it). So the PVL stations belong on both, but the stations west of Suffern don't belong on the NJT template. oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah alright, thanks for clarifying that. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question: Do all of the PVL stations have to be on both, or just the NJT operated stations on one and the MNR leased stations on the other? Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd leave them all on the NJT box and maybe just the leased ones on the MNR navbox. It's not quite as easy of a break as the Port Jervis Line where the line has a definitive ownership changeover spot that also serves as a change in service pattern and name. oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of edit
why do you insist on having an incorrect origin of country on a subject. I know you have said you find it whitewashing to put the actual country of origin and that you think it gives credit somehow to imperialistic colonizers as you call them but is it not better to be factual on Wikipedia Sharnadd (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Read the actual article. The fact that the version that is the subject of the article origjated in the southern US by fusing Scottish and west African traditions is well sourced. Cease vandalizing the article. oknazevad (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact is that fried chicken originated in the UK. There is plenty ty of evidence of this in the article. You should not continue to refute the evidence.  It is not vandalizing the article.  If you do not want the correct country of origin on as you believe it is an insult to the people who later enhanced the item maybe you should rename the page southern fried chicken since it is currently called fried chicken and this originated in Scotland Sharnadd (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Frying chicken with a batter coating is not exclusively Scottish in origin. There are versions found in many cultures for centuries. There is a reason the list of fried chicken dishes is long and exists as a separate article. Not all of them are descended from the Scottish practice. The west African contribution was not just "enhanc[ing] the item". That's also already in the article, and you seem to be ignoring that. That's the point. It's a child of both antecedents, and yet is not specifically one or the other. It's a distinct take on the historic practice used in multiple places of frying battered chicken pieces. The topic is the specific version that originated in what's now the southern US. So would you support a move to "southern fried chicken" to clarify the scope? Because I've long thought that should be done, but such proposals have not found consensus previously, because the common name is simply "fried chicken", even though it seems pretty ambiguous.
 * All that said, I do notice a pattern to your editing wherein you seem to assert British origins of foods without warrant, such as at roast beef sandwich, barbecue sauce, pound cake, and others. Frankly, I feel like you're POV pushing, which is unacceptable. oknazevad (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggested renaming the page in the past and you seemed to be against this. That is untrue.  Everywhere I have suggested an edit has been with historic information provided and a link to where the information came from .     It seems that some places take origin of country without actually researching the facts.  I have emailed the dispute council who suggest I make the edit to bring the topic up and we should  let other editors get involved.   Joint origin is now shown as that is more.factual Sharnadd (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)