This is an archive of past discussions with User:OccultZone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Re your message: It was recreated by the same editor. It is generally the same, but a lot of the spammy parts were not included this time or were removed by MrX. I think the awards used as references are questionable towards notability. An AfD would be reasonable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar for you!
Thank you for reporting sock puppets ;)
The Resilient Barnstar
The Resilient Barnstar is awarded to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never letting mistakes impede their growth as an editor. You are truly one of those editors! Many users have criticized your works here, and many have found them helpful to the community, like me. I know I post on your talk page too much, but I really do want to thank you for your contributions, and helping me as a Wikipedian. You have had so much Wiki drama, but you got through it, and you continue to get through the Arb Com cases, ANB cases, and much more drama hassle including sock puppetry. You are an inspiring Wikipedian to me, and I hope we are Wikipedia friends. I have your back if you need me! THANK YOU for ALL you do and continue to do for THIS community. I hope WE talk soon, and you keep doing what ya do best. CHEERS CookieMonster755(talk)06:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it seems to me that it would be best if you would use the preview button rather than relying on others to catch your mistakes. But maybe that's just me... —DoRD (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, it was one in many thousands. These are now redirecting to the main wikiproject so that's no more a problem now even if I post these templates again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I don't know all the rules. If you're not allowed to respond to this post to your talk page, then don't. If you have to delete this message to play by the rules, then do. If I didn't follow the 'commenting' guidelines, then please ask someone to clue me in, if you are allowed. When are visiting hours and are you let out for some fresh air and excercise?
I read all of the chit chat on your talk page about what was going on...no, I don't follow every link that has a blue arrow placed on the top right hand corner of some obscure piece of 'evidence', but I do read quite a few. I don't understand why the concept of 'infallibility' is attached to being an administrator? I never want to be one.
Best Regards,
Impalement, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@I am One of Many: I appreciate that you didn't violated 3-rr, but next time please ask for protection.
@96.52.0.249: Nearly each of your concerns had been answered on the talk page of the article, still you continue to pursue. It is GA because it is very informative and some of the sentences that multiple meanings, yet you continue to object them. I would say that you should consider WP:RFC. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that it was an individual assessment. You should not have reverted the individual assessment and address the concerns raised at the assessment. Note that both you and User:I am One of Many said that the changes I made were not up to GA standards. You also said in the same section that I should continue editing as I did.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
After numerous reverts, you know what changes I believe should be made. Changes were made mostly to lede. Semigenuine explanations such as "WP:OR" and "not up to wikipedia standards" are excessively broad to the specific problems I've repeated mentioned. You should be commenting at the DRN.96.52.0.249 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm on it for the stuff moved in from the evolution and Mustang articles. I did all the moves by the book and I restructured a crapload of the material, as I explained at the DYK. I'll keep plugging away on that. Montanabw(talk)05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. BlusterBlasterkablooie!16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caernarfon may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[caer|Fort]] [[Constantius Chlorus|Constantius]] or [[Constantine (disambiguation)|Constantine]]"),{{refn|Stevenson's 1838 edition<ref>P. 20.</ref> of the ''History of the Britons'', cited by
Took me a while to work out what had gone wrong with Clare Potter, but apparently the notes section should come before the {{reflist}} template. I also noticed that you were having trouble with the <refname=martin/> cites, which you eventually deleted as "non-working" - this was because the refname in the cite had been changed to "Martin" in quotes - therefore throwing off the cites. Anyway, as the edit summaries indicated some frustration, I thought you might appreciate an explanation of what had gone wrong for future reference, as it was quite a simple fix really. Best, Mabalu (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Proposed decision posted for "OccultZone and others" arbitration case
Well dude if you will see the history of Battle of Chawinda , 1 month ago "Mar4d" has edited the chawinda battle and added stupid claim about territory lost!
he added this " Over 4,140 km territory lost " to the casualties2 ( INDIA ) section!
well we all know that battle of chawinda was fought in the Sialkot sector that is in Pakistan. Then how can India lost territory there? He mentioned "Over 4,140 km".
whole worlds knows that Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 was won by India because it held more territory of enemy, took more causality on enemy ..... And so on,
well if you will see the " Assessment of losses" or Neutral Claims in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 , it was mentioned by almost all the independent sources that India held 1,840km2 land of Pakistan and Pakistan held ~ 540km2 land of India at the end of hostilities.
even Pakistan owns fabricated history doesn't claim about " 4,140 km2 " ,
then how can someone mention imaginary claims on the Much debated Battle of Chawinda , although it was the battle and fought well Inside pakistani territory in the Sialkot sector, so mentioning whole war losses in the battle that doesn't even match with the reality ...... , only a stupid can do this,
Dude, why aren't you are reverting the edit done by that stupid, I am informing you about this because, few dumb Pakistanis like Top Gun are don't letting me editing the chawinda,
thanks for your kind attention and I will request you to revert that change done by Mar4d ( 1 Month ago ) ,
An arbitration case regarding OccultZone and other editors has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
User:OccultZone is banned indefinitely from English Wikipedia. They may appeal the ban after twelve months, and every six months thereafter.
User:OccultZone is also topic banned from making edits related to a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
User:OccultZone is indefinitely limited to operating a single account.
We already miss you! You are a user who added "special flavor" to our community. Hopefully you will come back online some day... Your contributions will not be forgotten. I wish you well my friend. You are a great Wikipedian Cheers, CookieMonster755(talk)00:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Why would you steer clear of me Swarm? Is it because I know the facts or is it because I am Christian? I don't want to start a bad wiki friendship with you, because you were the one who granted me special permissions... Hopefully we can still be wiki friends, Cheers. Happy editing. CookieMonster755(talk)19:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
Ubikwit (talk·contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
MONGO (talk·contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.
Tears roll down my eyes, as I write this message. Wikipedia had just lost another proficient editor. Occultzone, life is all about impact and your good faith edit will never be erased from Wikipedia.
There are more to life outside Wikipedia and I know you will do better outside Wikipedia. I'm going to miss you. Goodbye Occultzone!!! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£20:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, nice message by Wikicology, since long time I wanted to give some kind of tribute to OZ but today maybe the time to do so. When I was new OZ was my inspiration in editing Wikipedia. He also helped me in some instances and patrolled my some pages. Even my initial signature was inspired by his signature, I just copied his signature and inserted my name. Even my current signature has basic structure of his signature with color change and some modification. We will miss OZ. I hope OZ will have good time in real life. Best luck. Life never stops. --Human3015Send WikiLove21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have found editor OccultZone to be both at times infuriating in conflict and at other times a warm and helpful human being, who has honestly lent assistance to others when they sought it or gave morale support to the under-dog when others critizised them in what appears to me to be unfair circumstances. OccultZone has been found to have participated in breaking some of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies, something that editor appears to have great knowledge of and who had always sort to uphold. Given that Occultzone has done these things, it is a warning to others that Wikipedia could possibly become beyond an interest and more of an obsession. We all have our point of no return - you have one and I have one, and OccultZone has crossed theirs. I look forward to OccultZone's return to Wikipedia in a year's time, hopefully after long contemplation and with renewed interest and approach. I also look forward to that editor returning under the same name of OccultZone. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi OccultZone. When I first joined Wikipedia a few months ago, the very first message on my talk page was a welcoming message from you. I don't think I said thank you at the time, but please let me say it now. I wish you the best, and I hope you'll be back someday. Richard27182 (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
The Resilient Barnstar is awarded to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never letting mistakes impede their growth as an editor.
I would like to thank you for expanding the list of Greek mathematicians. A student of mine printed this list and showed to me. I was very proud and I remember you and the hard work you 've been doing. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Portal:Years, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Years and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Years during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)21:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Ban appeal
I would like to thank ARBCOM for giving me a chance to appeal the ban.
During this time I realized that I had been banned for correct reasons, that I had used sock puppets and continuously made sockpuppetry allegations against other users even when I had been told not to.
I have acknowledged that they were all bad ideas and I should've rather simply concentrated on building encyclopedia and drop the stick whenever I had been told to and avoid forumshopping/adminshopping.
Since I got banned I have never evaded the ban or asked anybody to make edits for me. The number of accounts that were blocked as socks and declared alternative accounts of mine has not increased since the ban.
And for what it's worth, I am not obsessed with Wikipedia anymore the way I unfortunately was, thus I am sure that I have no plans to cause disruption to this project.
If the ban appeal has been accepted, I would rather concentrate on building encyclopedia than doing any of the things that contributed to the ban or past blocks. I apologize for the inconveniences I had caused and I confident that none of my actions will remind of past mistakes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: Keeping it short that since there was no block evasion in these years or any recent edit conflicts prior the ban I would say that there's lack of possibility that we would see anything like that again, furthermore my internet is also secured. And yes, Amritasyaputra was totally an unrelated account. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Inlinetext Well, it has happened before that one would remove sock puppetry tag if the user hasn't been socking for ages, right now I can remember one example[4] of the few that I followed.[5] I had still notified the admin who had imposed the final block,[6] and that was the end of that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and Vanamonde93: Thanks a lot for supporting unban. Since you both said that I should demonstrate constructive contributions on other areas, I should remind you that my most edits, GAs and all DYKs were non-South Asian. But I still get your concerns.
Now without making this too long, we should note there are 3 different proposals.
Topic ban "from all articles and discussions relating to South Asia for at least six months",[7]
"topic ban from Ayurveda/Indian traditional medicine"[8]
I would accept any of them because I am no longer worried about those subjects or even Wikipedia, but still want to see the account unbanned so that I can mainly complete the lists and years articles whenever I have enough time. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome, hope they also clear up the collateral damage. AmritasyaPutra was a separate editor. BASC ruling was reversed in haste without evidence. But seems like they understand it is a different user since you have been welcomed back. Good luck. Omihbm (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
