User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 10

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. VZBob (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if you could help expand the list of greyhound routes because I feel that people don't know much at all about the bus services that greyhound provides. Also, it would be great if the infobox for the greyhound bus routes were customized for greyhound, e.g. adding restroom availability, and perhaps more info about rest stops, meal stops, etc. I've been on greyhound a number of times and would have liked to have a wiki article for the routes I traveled. Thanks in advance for any help! Jay (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been longstanding consensus here that individual bus routes are not notable and should not have individual articles.

WP:NOTTRAVEL and doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. So, I decline to aid such an effort, as I think it is wasted and is not something is support in any fashion. oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States telephone companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SNET. 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) 09:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I found another new vandalistic post on the SummerSlam article, it's been ongoing for some time. But this time it was done by a user who you apparently had warned previously, so, I followed up with a message on their talk page. I also undid their edit on the SummerSlam page; the event is Sunday, so, there might be lots of that type of activity that night. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me say that I think your comments such as "Cut fucking the crap", "promotional bukkshit", and other offensive language is just that, offensive, not to mention unprofessional, and completely unwarranted. You have clearly not studied the topics you so strongly feel the need to "correct" before tearing apart a page, or maybe leaving a message on a Talk page, or MAYBE even editing without the sailor-mouthed "editorials" of your own. Wikipedia clearly defines ETIQUETTE and DISRUPTIVE EDITING; please look into these items.

Items to Consider

• While "bourbon" did originate in the USA, NOT all bourbon is made in the USA.^[1]

• The link I cited was an outside link to an INDEPENDENT review of the product which made some important points, this is NOT "promotional bukkshit" as you so eloquently proposed (and might I point out your own misspelling of that last word). It speaks to the NOTABILITY of the entry (again, look at Wikipedia rules of NOTABILITY)

• Removing the following FACTS is NOT something an editor does. The product's NAME, OWNERSHIP, and DISTINCTION (NOT a craft or vanity brand, a creation of the person discussed on the page) IS information that belongs on the page. What you removed, "The products and recipes are wholly owned by the Jesse James America's Outlaw brand and made in the [[United States of America]]." is valid and verified information.

• To remove " The original flavored Jesse James America's Outlaw straight bourbon was the first of the three products to be introduced to consumers. Soon after, the brand's flavored bourbons (honey flavored and spiced) followed suit." is inappropriate, the timeline of the growth/expansion of the brand is factual and permissible information.

• The neutrality dispute you have will be addressed, I will add names, projects, awards, and other information to support the FACTS. There is no reason for me to add information that is of my own opinion vs. FACT. ^{[neutrality is disputed]} I am NOT the person this page is written about and have no reason to write anything but the facts, as stated in the rules (which, I believe, also include rules against profanity, disrespect, and, harassment).

• The distribution of the products IS an important fact AND verifiable. Wikipedia is read by people from across the globe, there is NO reason why "distributed throughout the United States" should be removed and it will be corrected as will most of the above.

Please leave this page alone as it is updated. The page is being updated by several people and some of us under the eye of professional Wikipedia Editors. If you have further dispute, please post on my talk page, send an email to me, or trust that the page is coming together nicely and just leave it off of your watch page if you cannot control your demeanor. Thank you in advance, have a good day. I will copy this entire message to Wikipedia for reference should you decide to delete it and ignore my responses and requests. Ask Molly (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you need to re-read the article you yourself try to claim as evidence for your edits. As noted at Bourbon whiskey#Legal requirements, by definition bourbon is made in the United States. No other whiskey from other countries can use the term, just as Scotch whisky is made only in Scotland. There is no reason to over emphasize the fact that it's made in the United States; that alone strikes me as promotional, as to emphasize the ownership I the brand in contrast to some majors bring owned by multinational conglomerates. What would actually be helpful is to say at what distillery it is made, as it is clearly whiskey sourced from a major distillery. There is no such place as the Jesse James Dupree distillery. So I also doubt any validity to claims of recipe ownership, and demand that there is a citation to that claim. Clearly the intent of these phrasing I these sentences is to create an image of the brand that is favorable. That is promotional and unacceptable. If need be I will tag the article as non-neutral, as the attempt to address the issue was rebuffed by an involved editor.

Secondly, the appropriateness of this material to the article is questionable at best. The article is about the musician, not the whiskey. This promotional material is truly

Finally, the claim of "professional Wikipedia Editors" gives lie to your claims of neutrality. You pretty much confessed that you are a paid editor with a conflict of interest. I would advise you to read

As an unbiased onlooker, I would say that you, Oknazevad, do have a point and are right in demanding citations to verify this claim.

does not quite know how everything works on Wikipedia yet, so please, in the future, take the opportunity to teach someone new instead of condemning them without first knowing their intentions

. Your tone was getting really threatening at the end of your response (block her, really?)--I'm disappointed that you didn't handle this better.

Both of you, please try to figure this out without pulling a full-scale edit war. The best way (and quickest) way to resolve this is to try to listen to each other and understand the other person's point of view, then work it out for the benefit of Wikipedia. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. While I do believe that paid editing is against the very spirit of Wikipedia and irreconcilable with

WP:NPOV, my tone was needlessly harsh and uncivil. For that I most sincerely apologize to Molly. I should always remember to assume good faith, even when I have reason to doubt it. With that said, my only edit to the article since is a minor formatting issue, and I don't plan on continuing with any other edits here, as another editor has addressed many of my POV concerns. oknazevad (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I have seen and read most of this (I have to be at work all day) and will respond accordingly sometime tomorrow. Thank you for addressing the issues and disagreements, one thing I will say right now is, I am not a paid/professional editor as mentioned here. I do not work for, have any personal gain, or special interest on this page other than that I have done a lot of research. I will read more here late tonight and address each point. Thanks again to you both Ask Molly (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Down the Swords

Please read with the knowledge that this is written with the best of intentions, without a spiteful tongue, and as to "tone", a curious, kind, somewhat confused tone should work just fine. :-) Apologies in advance for the length. After reading the input here, from both of you, I think the best way to address this is in a calm professional way without letting egos get bruised or cause anymore unnecessary flares. We will have to agree to disagree on some of these points, others will have to wait until I (or other editors) have the time to find better sources to use, still other items can be addressed quickly by laying to rest, the assumptions and threats that sparked this flame. To that end, please see the items below which I will use as a RE-starting point to frame up the page in question and get it updated.

First, Oknazevad, thank you for the apology, there is no reason to doubt my intentions when I am clearly explaining things rather than ignoring this, and I can take constructive criticism all day long...with respect. Second, for Anatasia, I understand every point you have made here except for one (and thank you for the professional input). I didn't understand is this>>>"and, unfortunately, you do seem to have quite a bit of a COI on this topic." I do not feel I have a conflict of interest;I have been studying all aspects of this since last December. Over an 8 month period,I have gained quite the education on the person, his businesses, and some personal history (although, I do need more on that last one one). I am not gaining anything from this, I am not related to the person, so I am confused as to why it is "unfortunate" to use the knowledge I have gained by study. The only thing I can think of, which I have explained, is that my writing in the past has sometimes been promotional in nature and perhaps the learning curve from one style to another is the problem, and not COI. Please let me know if this is a possibility. I have no EVIL intentions here and this has gotten quite heated, I'm just learning, not abusing any "inside info" or collecting a paycheck for this. That being said, please review the items below and I will take them to my Wikipedia adopter to use to help me along with this.

Let it Go

As mentioned above, I am NOT a paid editor, I am REALLY baffled as to where that information came from, so let's let it go. Please do not accuse me of such abuse again.

Assumptions - Oknazevad, there are a lot of assumptions being made which are unfounded, If there is something in question, please let me know before making claims against my intentions and character. I am working with a Wikipedia Adoption Program and have a great deal of faith that this will be useful going forward. These accusations can be seen by others and can damage my reputation and yours as contributors if people see them.

These are some examples of the assumptions made here along with my responses -

• "it is clearly whiskey sourced from a major distillery" - Please support your claim that it "is clearly...", how can it be "clear" if it isn't true? It is not from a major distillery, I have seen the place myself, he just doesn't invite a lot of attention to that I suppose, I don't know, when proper source is located, it will be used.

• "The article is about the musician, not the whiskey. This promotional material is truly" - The article is actually about a man who happens to be a musician and a businessman (to include the whiskey), somehow someone just got hung up on the whiskey part. If you look at the first paragraph, it says "businessman." Check out Sammy Hagar, musician, bar owner, reality show, and owns Cabo brand. There are no issues with Hagar's multiple interests being on his own page. This article is not about "the musician", it's about the man and all of the things and people who go along with 'the man", music, business, and otherwise.

• "There is no such place as the Jesse James Dupree distillery. So I also doubt any validity to claims of recipe ownership" - Jesse James Distilling Co. does exist and the ownership of the recipe belongs to the company. This will be added back in when proper source is available.

• "Clearly the intent of these phrasing I these sentences is to create an image of the brand that is favorable. That is promotional and unacceptable." - I disagree, even if the writing comes out to sound "favorable" this does not speak to intent, it is not "clearly the intent" at all. If my writing style comes out of promotional work then I need to work on my phrasing, which I believe is an acceptable thing to work through. I'm sure we have ALL seen pages with heinous errors beyond "style", this is something I clearly need to work on, it is not intentional promotion (I like the Beatles, Sam Cooke, and talk radio! I'd promote these if it were a matter of "promoting").

• "Finally, the claim of "professional Wikipedia Editors" gives lie to your claims of neutrality. You pretty much confessed that you are a paid editor with a conflict of interest. I would advise you to read WP:PAY immediately." - Again, I am NOT a paid editor and the accusation is baseless, please let's leave the attacks aside, it isn't productive. A person cannot "pretty much confess" anyway, that's like being "a little pregnant", <<<trying to find SOME humor here.

• "More importantly, with 10 years and over 25,000 edits to Wikipedia, I don't take orders from so-called "professional editors". So I'd advise you to back off, before your own confession here results in your being blocked." - While your contributions to Wikipedia are impressive in numbers, they should not be used as a weapon against those of us who come after you. Instead of beating me with your Wikipedia resume, assuming anyone has given you "orders", or advising me to "back off" of a confession that never happened, and threatening to block me, why not help instead of unleashing this fury?

Learn a Thing or Two

I have great hopes that I will learn from this experience and future experiences. By following sound advice of experienced and professional editors such as the two of you, I hope to become a better Wikipedia contributor. It is not in my nature to be presumptuous, disrespectful, or ignorant of the fact that even on topics I have studied a great deal, there is someone out there who knows more than I. It is through my own hard work and utilizing the power of other people's experience that I become more educated. In short, if I want to learn, I know the best sources are those who have gone before me. I will continue to be respectful, even in this situation, I will take Anastasia's advice on both ends, I will pay attention to more experienced writers but I will not be pushed around. I sincerely hope all of this can be laid to rest now that we have each taken the opportunity to respond. I learn by watching, doing, and asking and that is how I intend to proceed. I hope that you can take to heart what I have had to say without any misgivings; I apologize for the long note but, I feel these are important points that needed to be addressed for the sake of maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and to diffuse the situation so we can all move on with our goals. I wish you both well and thank you for reading. Ask Molly (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Molly's Mind: Thank you for fully expressing your point of view, Molly! I believe that both Oknazevad and I are kind of over this at this point, and have completely understood you. Oknazevad has already apologized, and that should be sufficient. The way you were editing did made it seem that you had some COI on the topic, but you have apparently cleared all that up. Thanks for all you've done, and I sincerely hope that this never happens again. Oknazevad, I understand that Molly's response probably just makes you want to defend yourself again, but let's just drop it before this goes any further. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all good. 'Twas a misunderstanding. Let's all just move on.oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that while doing some article cleanup, you removed the "Specialties" section of the Rye whiskey article (on 00:59, 15 February 2012), which contained the only information I have found on Wikipedia about "Rock and Rye" (which I was looking for because it was used as an example in http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/bam.shtml). It turns out that Rock and Rye was a redirect to that section. I changed the redirect to point to Liqueur, since that's what it is, but there's no mention of "Rock and Rye" in the Liqueur article either. I think that somewhere on Wikipedia (not necessarily in the Rye whiskey article) there should be some information about "Rock and Rye". Do you have any thoughts on that? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, good question. I removed it originally, if memory serves correctly, because it seemed too specific of a mention, and the other listed formerly items were obvious mixes. (Of course people mix it with ginger ale; people mix everything with ginger ale! Not exactly worthy of a paragraph).

That said, there are mentions of some common cocktails at other liquor articles, and it is pretty distinct. But, honestly, it probably should be it's own article, as a) many notable cocktails have articles, and b) the availability of premixed versions (or that homemade versions are usually made by the bottle) elevates it to the liqueur category. Either way it is distinctly notable, and should be spun off. (I complete forgot I had done that, too. The main thrust of the edit was to eliminate redundancies with the Canadian whisky article.) oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Boeing720 has taken the UITP reference to RS noticeboard. Don't ask me why... But your thoughts over there would be welcome. --IJBall (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oknazevad. (I'm new at this, so please leave tips if changes are needed.)

On the karate article, you reverted the change of karate being an Olympic Sport. Your change is not correct. Before a voting on a sport to be on the Olympic programme, the sport must be an Olympic sport first. All those up for a vote, as mentioned in the source, are Olympic sports. The vote was about which of them goes on the Olympic programme. This is also implied on the WKF wiki page, saying "the only karate organization recognised by the International Olympic Committee".

I hope this clears things up.

Kind regards, Tulimafat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulimafat (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the term "Olympic sport" specifically and explicitly means a sport contested at the Olympic Games (summer or winter), that is one on the Olympic program. That's different from the IOC recognizing that a sport exists and has an governing international federation (as they do for the WKF). Karate is not, not has it ever been on the Olympic program, and is therefore not an Olympic sport as correctly understood. You are in error. oknazevad (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I responded to your comment over at

Or perhaps, if you would prefer, indicating if you think either the current title or the proposed titled might be preferable to the other, even if you'd still prefer another option, just to help us get a better sense of general consensus. Or, if I'm just being annoying, please do feel free to tell me to just buzz off, I realize that you probably have other articles and matters here that are more important. Sorry for bothering you!--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you tell all editors to "knock it off", I suggest you look at the edit summaries of the IPs over the last week and ask yourself if that editor would actually constructively discuss content. More history: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive859#IP_needs_blocking --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there's enough bad will and behavior going around, and it needs to stop. Someone removed a long-standing part of the lead, and was reverted. At that point, per

WP:BRD, a discussion should have been started. Instead, the revert was reverted, and passions flared on both sides (with poor factual basis for anything, in my estimation). The purpose of my edit was to say stop fighting and take it to the talk page. As for the inclusion of Hebrew, arak is part of Israeli cuisine (though not exclusively), so I see no reason to remove it. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van Halen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sprint Cup. 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) 09:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MansourJE (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Sir, I guess it's true. I studied in a valid book. Did you delete it? Was it not related ? Please tell me.[reply]

I deleted it because it seemed off topic for the article, in that it wasn't a suggestion about something to include or improve in the article, just a general comment about the subject of the article. At least I think that's what it was. To be honest, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your English is so poor that I cannot fully understand what you were trying to say. Word order and sentence structure were incorrect, and that made your comment unintelligible. Wen simple things, like placing the signifies at the end of a talk page comment, not the beginning, were misformatted. I appreciate that you want to contribute, but I think you need more practice first. oknazevad (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on adding the phone numbers, I hadn't read

You're edits look good. Using the GA review from 2008 is a good idea, though I would check to see if the criteria have changed since. But generally, anything based on that is an improvement. Glad you're working on it! oknazevad (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.