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.

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

Changes to Yogi Berra Stadium, Stade Canac, and SIUH Community Park (among others) lead me to suspect User:Jrtrottier of being the same stadium-capacity-obsessed sockpuppet we've seen before. Do you have any thoughts on this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same suspicion. If you file a WP:SPI let me know. oknazevad (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bbq sauce

You don't one one ingredient which is a common part of the sauce listed under ingredients generally used or in main body as you did not like the source. You also state leadcite however the other ingredients are listed on both the places you have removed Worcester from. Would you like to remove the rest of the ingredients that were both listed in the same places if it's down to leadcite. Also could you please stop swearing in your edited Sharnadd (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that English?

No, it's not a common part of the sauce; the ref does not state that, while the sentence does. That means the ref does not support the addition. It's not a valid reliable source. The addition fails WP:V. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So.it.wasnt due to.leadcite like you stated Sharnadd (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exclusively. Read the entire edit summary instead of playing "gotcha". In fact, read all the policies, unless you want to be back at ANI again. oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps the reason you had to resort the such a poor source that doesn't actually support your claim is because your claim is actually incorrect. Worcestershire sauce is not a widespread common ingredient in barbecue sauce, let alone one common enough to be listed first, and your belief that it is is wrong. This is a pattern of behavior for you. Perhaps in your edits you need to read up on a subject and learn about it instead of assuming you know something and then looking for a justification that doesn't really say what you think it says. oknazevad (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that the Washington post was considered a bad source . It does appear to be in many recipes for BBQ sauce so you would list it as an uncommon ingredient Sharnadd (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post is a fine source, but because a couple of recipes in a recipe column from a newspaper include an ingredient does not mean one can generalize the way you tried to.

As for this particular situation, I don't think the barbecue sauce page needs to mention Worcestershire sauce at all in any fashion any more than it mentions soy sauce. oknazevad (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad just be aware that this editor has been making very disruptive edits to the project trying to find any possible reason to insert British origins into anything commonly accepted as (or generally attributed to) being American. They are on the verge of another ANI report for this continued disruption. TiggerJay (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. Their attempts to overplay the Scottish contributions to the decidedly southern U.S. originating (and strongly African influenced) style of fried chicken has vexed me before. oknazevad (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baked beans

You objected to the addition of further information of the ingredients that were in the way baked beans were made in medieval England. However the dish that was mentioned doesn't have many different references apart from the original cookbook it was in. Would you like me to add defences to other modern historical cookbooks on the period that show the recipe Sharnadd (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you need to do is add secondary and tertiary sources that discuss the history, not primary historical sources. Please read and understand WP:SYNTH and WP:PSTS. Many of your edits fail to uphold these policies. oknazevad (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I will as a secondary source. I sometimes don't know when to add more than one source and have been informed I have added more sources than are needed or added them to.places that don't need a source attached Sharnadd (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, "secondary source" doesn't mean just adding a second source, it means that the source is secondary, that is it's a source writing about other sources, not directly about the topic. A recipe book is a primary source. An article about the history of a dish is a secondary source. oknazevad (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I included a secondary source and did not agree with it. What is wrong .with a history book that discusses the item in question Sharnadd (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history book was okay. But the second recipe was exactly what I was saying don't add, and the writing was very poor, making it difficult to see the point of the addition.

Please improve you're reading comprehension and writing skills. oknazevad (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a second recipe. It was a page of information about the general use of beans and how they were used in the medieval period including the original recipe. What exactly did you read Sharnadd (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't read anything because you didn't include nearly sufficient information in the citation to verify the content. Like, ISBN number, year of publication, page number, publisher, etc. Nust another way I question whether or not your competence to edit is sufficient. You really need to learn how to add material before you add anything. oknazevad (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The isbn is on now since you couldn't find from author and book name Sharnadd (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated content

AI-generated content is not allowed or wanted on Wikipedia. I am removing very obvious AI-generated content which also contains spam links. See this discussion. If you have problem with this, please start a discussion at ANI rather than edit-warring. Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the edit history, I concur with your removal. The HBR source would be a good basis for such a section, but it would need to be written by an actual human from scratch. AI LLMs stink. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation hat note

You will need to add a hat note that directs people to Cort Theatre (disambiguation) at the James Earl Jones Theatre page. This should have been done at the time of the page move.4meter4 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Added the hatnote. Though with only two entries on the disambiguation page, I wonder if WP:TWODABS comes into play and we don't need a disambiguation page at all. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GO Transit

I have started a move request at Talk:Acton GO Station in order to bring GO Transit stations up to the current standards for station article naming. Cards84664 19:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book date= vs year=

Hello Oknazevad! In your edit here, I may be wrong but it feels like your edit reason was aimed at me: "right idea, but books don't get exact dates, only years". That's not actually correct, the date field certainly can be used for books & frequently is (it's use is even documented in the Wiki cite book info page). You can see books like, The Great Gatsby, where multiple editions have the complete date of publication available here, so easily availble for people to quote a date rather than just a year. Worth also noting I did not add the date anyway, I simply removed the year= field because date= & year= are not supposed to be used together, doing so results in the "Category:CS1 maint: date and year" script error. Fixing that error on the article was my only purpose for the edit. I've been fixing a load of these recently, so have seen hundreds of pages that absolutely have date fields for books, so quite normal. While fixing the date/year script error, choosing between the two comes down to a simple comparison. If date= is just a repeat of the year=, I will remove the date= & keep the year=. If the date= has more than a year in it, I remove the year= field. This is because that extra info in date= is relevant & should be preserved (assuming it is correct of course) & follows the guidance on the cite book wiki page I mentioned above. I hope that clarifies the reasoning behind my edit. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding unless we have a firm date for book publication we should only use the year. And when it comes to books that's all we typically have (from the copyright statement). The release date of a book (or "street date" as it's called in the trade) isn't the same thing as a cover date on a periodical, and doesn't constitute the exact date of publication form a legal or practical standpoint, so it's probably best just to go with year. oknazevad (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oknazevad! Like that example I linked to above, many sites that people rely on for bibliographical details do list full dates in their "Published" fields. So I can definitely see why people fill them into Wiki's date= fields. Also seems counter intuitive that Wiki cite books has two "either or" fields of date= & year= if date= was never intended to be used (though would not be the first time Wiki citations were not intuitive!). Whether the date provided for the date= field is accurate is a bit beyond the scope of my editing when aiming to fix the year=/date= script error. I tend toward leaving the date, if provided, alone if I do not have any obvious reason to doubt it is accurate. I would not want to remove information based purely on an assumption, I leave it to those knowledgeable on the subject of the article to judge the accuracy of the date. Just as my editing to remove a script error from an existing ref is not an endorsement of the reference. I'd never get any of the script errors fixed if I did that kind of deep dive into all the articles with them. :) The year=/date= errors were at well over 5500, I've managed to get it down to 4550ish & still working on 'em. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'd just advise sticking to year instead of full date. It's no less accurate while ensuring that false positives don't sneak through. oknazevad (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]