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

Date formats in citations

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 articles

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 Brandy

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 page

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)

Brand

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 NYC 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)

Production Music

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)