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.
Thank you for your interest in this article. You made three changes to it. I have improved the first two; I don’t know about the third: you changed 220 px to 190 px, but another article has the photo as 200 px, and a third article doesn’t give a figure. I have no idea what is correct.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Both the links you deleted were invalid, so I understand why you removed them. However, the first one had just been vandalized - it was valid until a few hours before you intervened. The second one was wrong, and probably had been wrong for a long time. But your intervention drew my attention to it, and on investigation I discovered what the problem was: the “Santa Maria” at the beginning of the name should have been “Nostra Signora” (which is essentially the same). So I fixed that.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no problem Arildnordby. I consider that you can remove "citation needed" tag, from the RRM's activism summary. You should replace with some easier words, it should reflect that after 500 BCE, the women rights started to be degraded. That would be enough for now. Also the last paragraph of the section "spread" is probably not needed, because it has been greatly described by you, that the issue remains debatable. OccultZone (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To me, and many other Westerners, RRM is, unfortunately, completely unknown. Wouldn't it be preferable that I searched a bit and insert a godd ref on his activism? It shouldn't be too difficult to find! Yes, I agree that my sentence structure on the time after the Vedic is a bit complex, a clear sentence saying women's status degraded (some time after) 500 BC would be preferable. I will rethink last para, I feel it includes what my main source Yang regards as "crucial", namely the adoption of sati by Brahmins as an important stage in the spread of the custom. I was unsure (and decided against) if I should include the crystal clear, earlier prohibition on Brahmins performing sati, perhaps I should rework that part to ALSO include that prohibition?Arildnordby (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@Arildnordby: Right now, best you can do is check the recent edition of 2753 bytes, obvious WP:UNDUE and added by a obvious WP:SPA. I cannot find any important information in those edits or any difference compared to the edits you have made on "Scriptures". Just because the page is on my watchlist, I happen to revert any suspicious edition. But right now, There are more things to worry about, at least for me. Once you are done, just write back. OccultZone (Talk) 08:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. This new edit seems at first glance very technical, and at the outset, I think Sati (practice) well can support a technical section on different theological opinions. At the moment, though, it feels like an added mess, and I'm not well versed as to see the clear bias here. However, I will read through this very critically, trying to find alternate accounts/representations of this, but it will take some time. Once I have built up enough weapons in my arsenal, I will not hesitate demolish it, justifying the annihilation (if that is what I'll do) on the talk page. I'll send you a separate message when done.Arildnordby (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a first point. The David Brick-reference is clearly a reliable (and valuable!) technical source, but I cannot as yet determine whether the editor in question is guilty of cherry-picking it, or otherwise misrepresenting the issue.Arildnordby (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I already have, some time back, opened up a section on the Talk Page specifically devoted to my dissatisfaction then on how the theological debates, pro-et-contra were in a messy state (and still is). Back then, I tried to improve the article by integrating them in a single section (refraining from deletions and such), but I see that some perfectly good faith elements of this new major edit simply repeats points found elsewhere. Thus, a careful restructuring, weeding out as well as balancing task needs to be done on this particular subject. Altekar has lots on the early debate, and I have a few others to double check what is written here. Thanks for the notice.Arildnordby (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I see, for example, that it is now critical in order to understand the earliest phase how in both the Mahabarata and in the Ramayana, although stray notices of sati occur, these epics ALSO, and to a much greater extent, contain depictions of revered widows, not at all despised for choosing widowhood, rather than the pyre. One cannot really, get a balanced view on the development of this custom unless one gets the origins right, at least. So, I have lots to do..Arildnordby (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Easier or not, that strategy certainly will place the eventual suggestion from me on a firmer basis. And that's basically, what needs to be done now, as well getting a clarified structure on the topic "early Hindu texts/tracts dealing with sati". Obviously an important topic, as yet in a wholly unsatisfactory state.Arildnordby (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Arildnordby:, How are you? Check the latest changes of Sati subject. For these 3 days, I have well researched. Sadly, there is no source about the information, that was represented by user we had talked about. OccultZone (Talk) 18:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It's in a mess. I have opened up a new section on the Talk page of Sati (practice), to see if we at first can agree upon what sort of chronological framework we should strive to make apparent for the general reader.Arildnordby (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@Arildnordby: I also think that lead section should be lowered. Check the sources on talk, I have notified. We agree to get rid from the mess created by these two users now[1], [2] ? And half of article is focusing on various events around the world, than Sati itself. OccultZone (Talk) 07:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Multiple projects should be added, if descriptive theories have been mentioned. And Sati_(practice)#Modern_causative_models_on_the_spread_of_sati is not really WP:NPOV, because whole section is full of Yang's commentary, while only one or two dialogues from different sources. Last 2 Paragraphs can be removed, it seems to be repetition of added content.
Sati_(practice)#Sati_practice_within_non-Hindu_communities, heading should be "Within non-Hindu communities", it describes that Jainist wouldn't be committing Sati for religious purposes, but it has been repeated, "suggest the practice was largely unacceptable within this particular community" is not needed.
Ad Jains. Nope. See Sikh contrast. The SAME religious opposition existed there, but sati was large scale within Sikh aristocracy. A culture is NOT simply defined and determined by its religious leaders, you have lots of secular determinants as well. As for NPOV, that only holds if you can find significant divergent views than those presented by Yang et al., but that has not been included in the article. I haven't found them.Arildnordby (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It is true I rephrased "did not find general acceptance" into "largely unacceptable". I don't see how I thereby misrepresent the source used.Arildnordby (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You haven't misrepresented sources. But "general acceptance" weighs sense than "largely unacceptable", because practice was not rejected totally. Choice of words isn't wrong, it can be simply "unacceptable" too. Regards OccultZone (Talk) 15:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I won't become fixated on "largely unacceptable", and I'll rewritethe Jain conclusion closer in tune with that in the source.Arildnordby (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
@Arildnordby:, I have read your editions. Good job. I would like to inform you, that source was clearly misrepresented by other user, I have explained revert on talk page. Adding 2-3 quotes only for making a WP:Point wouldn't be a good choice. It is single source, we are adding information that is backed by multiple sources. And source said "Unfortunately, however, it is unclear whether or not he is in fact following Panini's precise usage here and, as a result, the issue must remain unresolved." About the quote that has been posted by user. One of his 32 points include "To the best of my knowledge, however, these scholars' writings have uniformly failed to present a systematic, thorough, and historical account of Dharmasastric statements on widow-burning." Read all 32 points of Brick. You may consider that source is misrepresented, and he is discussing the argument of other books. And instead of 4,400 bytes, it can be decreased to about 500 Bytes. OccultZone (Talk) 04:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Child sexual abuse in United Kingdom
Every entry there on living or recently deceased people must have reliable sources. Linking isn't sufficient. I'm sure you can fix this but you need to do it soon. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Pakistan in the Yom Kippur War
This was discussed this and a number of other related issues on Talk:Yom Kippur War. I am aware that Pakistani pilots flied missions against Israel both in 1973 and 1967, but no one could determine whether they participated as volunteers or if they were actually sent as epeditionary forces. Do you have any information on this? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn:, no time to look about it, but at least I know now.. Anyways, it is a Israel's page. 2 revert = block. But fundamental rule is that self revert = no revert. Can I self revert and face no warnings/blocks? Let me know. OccultZone (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about it -- I'm just curious and I'm not attacking you.
The 1RR does of course not apply to self-revertions or when users reach an agreement, but I don't see why you should self-revert if Pakistan actually participated in the 1973 war. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
So do you want to keep Pakistan or am I free to remove it? I personally find their involvement to be too marginal to be included in the infobox, as such a criteria would open of for the inclusion of among others North Korea as well. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Claim that saudi prince committed a Rape crime in 2013
The prince which is listed as having comitted rape in 2013 in Saudi Arabia, died in 1993. I tried to change that part of the article in the 'Rape in Saudi Arabia' article, but someone deleted my edition. Which was :
However this has been said to be slander against the Prince and a lie, given that he died in the year 1993, roughly ten years prior to the date of the alleged crime
There are like 2 sources on the entire internet that claim this crime, and neither of them are authentic, considering the gravity of the claim and the fact that I do not know if the prince was ever even found guilty of the crime, I request you delete the entire part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.168.29 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
May God forgive me and you, and may God give you abundant good and good health and guidance and protection, and for your family and friends may He give you every good, amen! God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.168.29 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
These are fairly easy to fix. Often there is another copy somewhere on the net. If it is a journal article the url can usually simply be removed. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello OccultZone. The IP 198.23.65.40 is the same IP at the Superpowers talk page who thinks Russia and China is a Superpower, and the same IP who is trying to say that the USA is not a Superpower. He is a highly disruptive person and has been vandalizing Wikipedia for many days. He uses proxies to make his IP jump from country to country to avoid getting blocked. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've got enough problems without having to keep track of disorganised comments on talk pages. Was there any need to place this where you did? And is there even any point mentioning other sources in a section that is reviewing sources that had already been added? Obviously, suggesting other sources is not a bad thing but it won't make the original source any more reliable, or at least it will not given the arguments that I have presented. If you want to suggest a new source for a statement, or even a new statement, then start another section. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Kwak Dong-yeon. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cindy(talk)10:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The maintenance templates were added in this diff, which was followed with the addition of a category (thanks) and removal of a template notation pertaining to external links, as noted in this diff. You didn't actually address the outstanding issue, but rather simply moved the section header for the external links section. The issue remains. If you have more questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Note that I would be more than happy to jump in and help clean up the article, but it is clear that you are keeping an eye on it. Your work is appreciated. Again, if you need help, just holler! Cindy(talk)10:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello OccultZone. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Somnath Mukherjee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk11:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I dont know why you think "references" and "personal life" should be subheadings of "other activities" but I would prefer it the way I had it originally. References and personal life are separate categories, not sub-categories. Thanks for trying to help, but please leave the article the way it was at first.Simplysavvy (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@Simplysavvy: you can check any other biographical or any wiki articles. You cannot add the subsections the way you are trying to, unless it is your own talk page or userpage. Regards. OccultZone (Talk) 11:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I am happy that you are helping me, but when I wrote the article I was looking at another wiki article about a business person, and this was the way the article was organized. References are never a subset of another category. Please show me an example when references are a subset of another category. Also, how is personal life a subset of another category? Its its own category. Check out Bill Gates' wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplysavvy (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Imbunty. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Heartless (2014 film) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Imbunty (talk), 17 February 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbunty (talk • contribs) 05:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
including a short plot summary that summarizes the whole story is standard for every encyclopedic article about works of fiction. It does not need an additional source for "this happened and then this happened and then it ended like this" * because the film itself is an appropriate source. WP:WAF, WP:SPOILER, Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Primary_contentWP:PSTS
(* interpretation of subtle plot items does require a source:
"She went back to her father's house to try to kill him" - generally no need for a source, thats going to be obvious in the film
"Because the film is a representation of Freud's Oedipal complex - she had to go back to his house to try to kill him" - unless someone in the film states that, it would need a source. )
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mad In India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baba Ramdev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
I need some time to digest this, and your comments on the talk page; there is no dead line on wikipedia.
What I propose to do is the following:
To make a DETAILED outline of the historical debate first that is correct relative to Brick and other scholars.
It is THEN much easier to comprise that representation or, even, propose opening a perfectly acceptable spin-off page called, for example, Sati (scriptural debate)
Furthermore, I would like to retain most of those correct edits made by the other editor, even if it becomes clear he misrepresented them by his conclusions/selections. Wilful misrepresentation is "bad faith" attitude, stupid misunderstanding is "good faith" attitude towards factually incorrect edits, and if he has added quotes, even paraphrases, that are acceptable renderings on parts, I want to keep them, out of respect towards him (but mercilessly edit away incorrect glossings and interpretations!).
Well, that is my stance, I will certainly read through both Brick and your own comment at the Talk Page, and again thanks for the freelibrary link! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You know what to do, but thanks for the brilliant response! I don't really think that we can make a particular page for it, unless there are multiple sources. Brick is the main author of this whole article, and he makes more sense in whole article. We can agree here. But right now you may need to analyze what he actually wrote, it is quiet opposite to what has been written on page. OccultZone (Talk) 13:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, OccultZone. I reverted your addition of Category:Airports to Dikungu Airport because it was already a part of a sub-sub category of that category (Category: Airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), and per WP:SUBCAT, it's my understanding that you shouldn't have an article in both a parent and child category. If you disagree, drop me a talk message. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding GOCE request to copyedit justifiable homicide
Hello,
Copyediting this article at this time is premature: the article possesses a multitude of issues, including unsourced material, lack of references, possible original research, among others. While I certainly agree the subject is worthy of a page, I do not feel further tidying the legalistic language is appropriate until the material has a verifiable primary source. Thank you.TheFurorDivinus (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi OccultZone. I've completed a copy edit of Rape in Afghanistan as you requested. Please note that I've had to tag failed verification of the statement "Rape in Afghanistan is considered uncommon compared to other nations, because of massive underreporting", as the source you used doesn't support that statement. I think you may be able to use one of the sources from Rape statistics#Afghanistan. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mad In India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baba Ramdev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
I noticed that you had changed an ", although..." to ". Although..." in this edit. If you leave it that way it is not a complete sentence, it reads "Although recent data regarding the population of Russia has shown some modest population growth in 2012 due to immigration." If I've misunderstood your edit, let's discuss. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Can you explain to me what you are doing with edits such as this one Jan Kops? I really can't see the value to Wikipedia, so hopefully you can explain it to me. Thanks, Jane (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your input as well as well as providing some more info in regards to the LGBT in Pakistan, that I may not have grasped. The article seems like there is a lot of redundant info and also lacks other info pertaining to HIV and Lesbians, as well as the the youth. So I will try to find more info to add to that. In the mean time if you have some advise or concerns that you like to you can either let me know or go in and fix the problem :) I left it in edit version in the talk pages; well the intro that is. That too is pretty long for an Intro as some of it can definitely go into the body.
Now, I would have still messaged you if I didn't have questions. And the questions I have, you are not obligated to answer them ...
Talk:Human Rights Commission of PakistanUser:Sajjad Altaf had wanted to include about 24 Pakistani students who had been deported back to their country by the Canadian officials even though they were innocent, Project Thread. I think he didn't pay attention to the content once again I believe was unable to provide a source. Nonetheless I may have a cultural bias as well as just bad experience with his behaviour that may inadvertently make me a little biased and I don't ant to delete something that he may have valid reason for, eh? ;)
Second concern was about Jordanian Royal Family. Are they behaving and the articles within the NPOV? Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan, Prince Hassan bin Talal, his children, etc. Also where their realm should go, seems like they are putting their entire name for instance HRH Lilpiglet :P
Thanks, in advance --lilpiglet 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talk • contribs)
Thank you kindly @OccultZone: ... as for pages, I will leave it for someone else I think especially since I don't ono much about the family except for the wives both of them are married to. :) --lilpiglet 16:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I restored the required link to your article in the hook, and tweaked the wording a bit. I see that the reviewer tweaked the hook some more, and has already approved it. Congratulations on your first DYK nomination. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM02:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jonze (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tawker (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Occult. Please have a read of the article as the material you were adding was already there just with slightly different wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Bedford School
You've just tagged the Bedford School Wiki page with the following tag: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view."
Since November 2013, I have spent hours and hours and hours since attempting to knock this page into shape, to provide a "cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies" and to remove content that was deemed not to be "neutral". So, would you please explain what exactly you deem to be the problems at this stage so that I may address them and remove this tag.
It wouldn't be you, but it will be anyone else who will clean up the article, and find out if it is applicable to add or not. Certainly, that subject is neither cultural, nor it is historical. It is about a school. It is quite uncommon to see that the page has been edited about 1,400 times by a single user. OccultZone (Talk) 12:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I really don't understand. Are you saying that there is nothing you can identify which needs to be dealt with on this page at this stage ? If so, why have you put the tag there ? I have removed all material unsupported by reference to a reputable secondary source. So, I cannot see what you want done here. Would you please explain. Many thanks. Vietnamvat12:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
How come you know so much about that school? There are only 44 references. You need more. Notably, article has names of many dead and living people, you will need to add references for every single name, at least 1. I am talking about section 10, Bedford_School#Notable_Old_Bedfordians. OccultZone (Talk) 13:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Why should how I know so much about the school be in the least relevant ? So far as footnotes are concerned, I've footnoted "Notable Old Bedfordians" only in cases where there is no reference supporting the fact that they are Old Bedfordians in the main Wiki articles on each of those people. Are you really suggesting that I need to repeat the footnote which is already present on the main Wiki article for each Old Bedfordian ? Surely that just very unnecessarily adds further text, and this is already a long article. It would be nothing short of pettyfogging pedantry. Vietnamvat13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Staggering. It really is unsurprising that so few people of any ability are willing to give any time to Wikipedia and that it remains such a bloody mess, unloved and unrespected. This American blind obsession with following rules, to the letter, divorced from educated judgement, is, I suppose, just one reason why this project is such an abject failure. It could possibly work, but not when it's run like this. Oh well. Sad. I will add footnotes, totally unnecessarily, as they're already there on the main biographical pages, but just so that your absurd little tag can be taken down. Thank you so very, very much. Vietnamvat14:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't take it personally. You are not enforced to improve article. Whenever I tag article, I try to improve them as quickly as I can. Anyways, you are aware about that tag and the policy, so I've taken it down. But don't forget to improve, if you are taking responsibility. OccultZone (Talk) 14:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I apologise for being irritated by this. However, I hope you understand that when one has spent so long attempting to clean up what was previously a terrible article, it is irritating, at that point, to be told that the article needs clearing up. Anyway, I will go ahead "take responsibility". All the best. Vietnamvat14:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Your name keeps popping up on my Watchlist for your AWB fixes to 17th century biographies. They might be simple fixes but they are important and I thought you deserved some recognition. Keep up the great work! Stalwart11123:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
One link in the infobox and one link in the article has been generally accepted for as long as i've been here. Also links that are far apart such as 2009 NFL Draft here have been fine. There also doesn't seem to be any consistency with the link removal since you removed the link to the 2009 NFL draft but not Chicago Bears which is linked twice in the article.--Yankees1016:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Please be careful. You only use AWB to remove extra spaces inside and outside templates. It is against AWB rules of use. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean in general. No reason to only mass fix double spaces per MOS:PUNCTSPACE. I can give you more interesting tasks if you are interested to use AWB for a good cause. :) For starts, I suggest that you enable "typo fixing" when editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I updated the information on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual#Tools to help you with the custom modules. I am not trying to discourage you from editing but improve your editing. AWB is a powerful tool and capable of doing many things. It is still not optimised for editing talk pages so you'll need to take some precautions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks a lot that you are trying to help with better editing. Probably it hasn't been customized for talk pages, or else the banner shell wouldn't have broken. OccultZone (Talk) 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Better read {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} before removing anything. I have not seen any examples of duplicated parameters. Moreover, AWB provides an alert for those rare cases. I insist that you read carefully instructions of AWB and some documentation before editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In AWB, normal 'clean up' is always non-controversial. Like all of my edits with AWB were clean up. Though, text changing can be controversial. Correct? OccultZone (Talk) 11:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
'Clean up' is almost always non-controversial. Many editors will get upset if the only edits are to solely bypass redirects and remove whitespace since these tasks can be performed along with other, more important, tasks. Especially when this is done by editors and not by bots which results in watchlists to be triggered, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not ignoring the 'whitespace' problem. But I have marked 'only whitespace is changed' as skip option, like before. OccultZone (Talk) 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand what exactly you want to do with the talk pages. There are 1 million biography pages. Are you trying to bypass the redirect in all of the them? I suggested the custom module as an extra tool to help you in doing general fixes, not to use the custom module solely. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean "articles" because you should not edit the main page. Anyway, the custom module is only for talk pages and as you may have noticed is not perfect. This is used to aid doing general fixes on talk pages. Remember, to activate "skip if no general fixes" when editing on talk pages. The custom module should not be used alone. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. Just remember that I need you to pay attention before saving. For example you added Persondata while you should not. But this was a problem of a misplaced template that tricked AWB. Please keep record of "weird/unusual" cases and bugs so we can fix them. you can use your talk page and I'll review them. Recall that AWB also provides a bugs page at WP:AWB/B. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait! You changed debut with Noël Coward in many pages without even checking your edits. You AWB permission has been revoked temporarily. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I regret, but that's why I avoid using the 'typo'. It can be often controversial. Although all of those error pages have been reverted, I had posted about that into the page as well. And I realize this one, hopefully, this wouldn't happen again. OccultZone (Talk) 08:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Noel Coward
Please *think* about the AWB edits you are making. There was an error in the spelling rules which replaced the word "debut" with "Noel Coward" - a clear error, which has been fixed. But you have saved several edits using this rule. Instead, if you see that AWB is misbehaving please post at WT:AWB or WT:AWB/T so that it can be fixed. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
John of Reading I revoked OccultZone's access temporarily and revert most(?) of the edits with the problem. I spent 4 days explaining to OccultZone how to use the tool. This reminds me of Fram sometimes spending that much energy correcting others mistakes. If OccultZone won't prove they are checking their edits I won't reallow access to AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
As John of Reading wrote. It was an error introduced by another editor and now it is fixed. It was an obvious error and these things happen very often since typo fixing is based on rules on a page almost anyone can edit. This is way everyone who does typo fixing must be double cautious before saving. If you notice any similar mistakes you should not save the page and instead report the error. This is the reason no bots do typo fixing and we need willing editors to do that. In the AWB's edit summary you can see what changed are suggested and decide whether to save the page or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes sure. I never knew that anything should be reported to AWB' community, because whatever I had read here, obviously it wasn't enough, but I couldn't find a single incidence when it was the typo fault of AWB, but the editor themselves, who did the settings. Well, at present I am aware about that. For like 20 - 30 minutes, I was busy finding if any of my own settings led AWB doing this all. Until I saw your another message on my talk page. OccultZone (Talk) 08:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
AWB again
I suggest that you
Do not do any typo fixing
You enable skip if only whitespace changed
You enable skip if only casing changed
You enable skip if only cosmetic changes
You disable "Restrict defaultsort change/addition".
If you agree I'll give give back the access to AWB. Sorry for that but AWB sometimes can get complicated and I need to know that you fully understand how it works and till now this has not been clear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I will. Magioladitis, you see, I have made 10,000s of the edits with AWB now. I do have a little experience, and probably incidences like above one will affect my editing with AWB, in future. They will surely have positive impact on my editing. OccultZone (Talk) 08:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone I restored your AWB access. Some more advice: Please avoid saving that fast in the future. Reduce your edit rate to have the time to check your edits. Avoid performing minor changes. Report any errors on your talk page and/or AWB's bug pages. Recall that you take full responsibility for your edits and using any automated tools is your responsibility. Today you caused problems in almost 50 pages and I do not have the time to review every single edit of yours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is not so much a question of the number of links but the amount of text. If for example there is a one line stub then even if there are no links the article may not be under-linked, but if someone drops a 3 page PD source into an article, even 10 links might mean that it was under-linked. I think it is a matter of judgement.
Let me give you an example. An editor who will remain nameless started create new Wikipedia articles by copying DNB biographies from Wikisource. These were by and large just raw text with few links. Clearly these were under-linked (and with other MOS problems), so eventually (s)he was warned that if (s)he continued it would be considered disruptive. Yesterday I considered replacing the EB1911 text of Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence with the DNB text from s:Lionel of Antwerp (DNB00). I did not because adding in the link etc would have taken me longer than I was willing to spend on what was for me a passing interst. If I had just copied the text across and only added inline citation and not spent the time copy-editing it then that would have been an example of a factually accurate but very under-linked article. -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
John of Reading AWB will tag a page with no wikilnks as deadend and not underlinked. A page will be tagged as underlinked it it has 1 or 2 links, it has not a underlinked tag already, it is not a dab nor SIA page. So it will add the tag in very few pages. Editors can use their judgment to add underlinked in other cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
When you add talk pages for Uzbekistan, I would appreciate it if you would use
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=start|importance=low|Uzbekistan=yes|Uzbekistan-importance=low}} or the like on the talk pages, as this goes to Central Asia.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
AWB cannot determine whether a template is a wikiproject banner or not. Wikiprojects are placed over other templates per WP:TPL. To decide to whether save or not it is editor's decision. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A similar article like this was already deleted. Check Mark Leonard (writer). This article is not even a copy of that, it's just about the same person but in stub form.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi there, I noticed your change here at the New Zealand land confiscations article in which "date" in the citebook template citation was changed to "year". This has happened at other articles to which I've contributed. I frequently use the citebook template and don't want to continue creating problems that other editors need to fix, but can you please explain why you've made that change? The citebook template at Wikipedia:Citation templates does indeed use "date", not "year"; I simply copy that template into the articles I'm editing. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The examples given at Wikipedia:Citation templates#Examples, however, retain the word "date" in examples 1 and 2. It's still not clear to me (a) why you change that to "year" and (b) whether I should also change "date" to "year" when I'm citing books as a source. Or is it just your personal preference? It may be something you can raise at the template talk page if you think it's wrong. BlackCab (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll just stick to the template, I guess. If other editors want to change it, they can, though it's still a puzzle why AWB is set up to make that change if it's in conflict with the template instructions. BlackCab (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Zealand Conservation Authority, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi OccultZone. Nice that you like the article. Which categories do you suggest me to add? I put there Vehicles introduced in 1932, does it still need something more in your opinion? --Gwafton (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Leonard (director) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ListCheck (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please avoid orphan tagging pages that were just created. AWB will add to any page with no incoming links but will remove it only if page has 3 or more incoming links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget to review my last contributions. If you remember, I had once asked about orphan tagging, that AWB wanted to tag one of my article as orphan, even though this page was linked. Before today, I never knew that you need 3 links. Who changed this setting anyway? OccultZone (Talk) 12:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
We need 0 incoming links to tag and 3 to untag. If there 1-2 links you need to review and untag manually if you think these 2 links are stable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
On 26 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rape in Germany, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to a national report, the conviction rate of rape in Germany has declined, from 20% in the 1980s to 13% by 2000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rape in Germany. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I've seen your edits to a few articles on my watchlist. Thank you for fixing typographical errors that I was too lazy to address myself. However, it's unnecessary to strip out the double spaces after punctuation; this is specifically allowed by the MOS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: You are welcome, and I don't remove double space only because it is a double space, nor it is my only edit for whole page, you have probably observed. But anything which is after a dot or comma, that would be targeted. Knowing that many of these pages were made by new editors, they may have drafted them somewhere on notepad or MS word, a normal user wound't know what is double space when they use it. OccultZone (Talk) 03:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 30 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
in the retirement of Sir [[Adrian Boult]] as chief conductor of the BBC Symphony Orchestra.<ref>[Kennedy, Michael (1987). Adrian Boult. London: Hamish Hamilton. ISBN 0-333-48752-4. p215</ref>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rajbhandari 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.
I fixed the bracket but recall that the bot visits the page the editor who introduced the unbalanced brackets because it is expected that the person who introduced the error is the one who is fixing it. Bracketbot gives dozens of warnings everyday. I get many too. We lack editors massively fixing these errors. So everyone, at least those who are constantly active, has to fix their own errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gabellotto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
I have checked, that's his correct death year. You can notify me here, if you found any other death year than 1976. OccultZone (Talk) 17:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Russia a potential superpower? I don't think so!
I was looking at Russia at the Potential superpowers article and I noticed that most of the references to support Russia as a potential superpower were not academic and were very unreliable. The only academic reference used in the article for Russia is this one: in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower, published 2004.
I don't think that one reference from 2004 is enough to support Russia as a potential superpower in the article. In my opinion Russia should be removed from the article. Russia is not in the same category as China, India and the EU.
@Antiochus the Great:, Good argument. These people were either journalists or common commentors. Not even economists or established agencies, I am wondering if there will be any potential in future either. You must raise this issue on the talk page of Potential Superpower. Wait for 1 week+, just like we did for Brazil previously. Good luck! OccultZone (Talk) 17:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Another question, is she notable? Like majority of sources are local. Not to mention that I could only label her under 2 categories (I couldn't find any alumni, which is probably a necessity for a businessperson)...--Mishae (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mishae: Notable. I can see multiple reliable sources on net, they focus on her. You can create category and add similar names to it. That will work. OccultZone (Talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@Titodutta: I understand your concern. Yes I have read that rule a few times, however 9/10 edits or even 8/10 of mine edits are usually effecting some content. I just let it go by clicking on "save", as most of these pages are hardly edited and hardly watched as well. OccultZone (Talk) 07:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The arrogance of that last reply is quite breathtaking. I came here to ask you yet again to please stop making trivial edita such as this and this, but it appears clear that you know the rules don't apply to you and you have no intention of taking a blind bit of notice. Struway2 (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
No? Once again. If it has triggered the watchlist, I had no intention of doing that. You are allowed to remove underscores, or additional spaces if they don't have any special importance on the page. OccultZone (Talk) 08:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Struway2, a couple of weeks ago, I wrote an essay "AWB spammers", then felt sorry as it became too much attacking. We need behavioural guidelines. I have asked here. I mentioned OccultZone, then removed his name, as he is one of many editors. OccultZone, here is my suggestion, if you allow me, if you really want to make many edits, go to to Category:Persondata with incomplete parameters, like BLP articles without persondata and persondata without short description, there are more than 100,000 pages, help there. Look, Those will be much better edits than what you are doing now. Tito☸Dutta08:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a good suggestion, after all, we don't really object people who uses AWB as "awb spammers", unless the changes are made against consensus, or any changes that are against the WP:ENGVAR, best of luck, I will definitely take your concern seriously. OccultZone (Talk) 08:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There are many debates and many reports against AWB significant edits. :) I don't always follow their discussions but you may search in AWB talk page. Yes, you are correct, calling "spammer" was too much, and that;s the reason, I deleted the essay. Hopefully there will be behavioural guidelines. About the question you have asked at AWB talk, let's see what happens in that discussion, then if necessary, I'll propose guidelines too. --Tito☸Dutta08:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There are some benefits from OccultZone's edits. I realised that we are lacking a lot of Persondata fields. Two bots are running now to add/update Persondata on about 30,000 pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Some persondata needs human attention. The most difficult ones are royalty related, like Abn Bin Taleb was the first nephew of the second daughter of the third cousin of the minister of the second King of Turkey's Alla Rakha dynasty Suleiman Inayattulah. . . he he :) Tito☸Dutta09:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone, I think the main problem is that you say that you've seen an edit had a problem and then you still saved it and then you did nothing to fix it or warn other about it. You wrote that you ignored the Bracketbot and that you noticed that your edit removed a portal template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, there was no problem with the portal thing, it had to do nothing with AWB. I had intentionally removed it, so I can make it better later on. It just happened that other user had spotted my edited, while I was still in process of finding the better code. Other than that, it was posted above "see also" section. OccultZone (Talk) 07:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited W. H. Lane Crauford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Just a heads up. User:Aniketp007 is back to his old ways of deleting news links and claiming that news is "hoax". I hope you keep an eye on that page since i'm not that active on wikipedia these days. Thanks. Neelkamala (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
