User talk:OccultZone

OccultZone (talk · contribs · logs · email · block log · global contribs)

Re: Amusing

So they did! It wouldn't be the first time either - not long after I became more active in 2012 (having been here since late 2011), my name was reported and we had a lovely chat in which it was decided it wasn't egregious enough of an offense. (It's in my first talk page archive if you're interested.) I also was not notified my name had been reported before you brought it to my attention, so thank you! Fortunately, the report was declined after all, I hope the user will not press the issue further... LazyBastardGuy 17:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Persondata delinking

Since Persondata maybe used outside Wikipedia too, why you unlink the places? I am not in favour of links in Persondata but since WP:Persondata allows this option, why do you unlink them? Is this covered by some guideline? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINKING you cannot link anything that is:-

• everyday words understood by most readers in context;
• the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations; and pre- and post-nominals;
• common units of measurement, e.g. relating to area, currency, length, temperature, time, or volume (if both non-metric and metric equivalents are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), usually neither unit need be linked because almost all readers will understand at least one or the other unit);
• dates.

You can run any of these delinking scripts or program on most of the FA articles and you won't find any links that can be de-linked, because they have followed these guidelines. In short words, removing a unnecessary link is still improvement. Furthermore, even if link is important, it shouldn't be linked 2nd time. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone Persondata is not visible on page and may also used by external programs and off-site viewers. Nothing of WP:OVERLINKING applies in this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Persondata reads that the data "can be extracted automatically and processed by cataloging tools and then used for a variety of purposes, such as providing advanced search capabilities, statistical analysis, automated categorization, and birthday lists." -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-site viewers are capable of keeping the wikilink? Or whenever they would copy-paste data, they will have to remove bracket? I.e. "Spain" → "Spain". The given example of Persondata is not supportive of any wikilinks, also per WP:Persondata#Parameters. It says "currently it isn't necessary to provide wikilinks in them", rest is just matter of doubt. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

But it clearly says "however, these might be useful in some future application". We can't just removed them because they are not used now! The entire Persondata is not used now by any cataloging tools as far as I know. This does not mean that we should go and remove it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So if someone has overlinked professions, geolocations in persondata, it must be kept? If you know anyway to ignore persondata you can let me know. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the script must hide Persondata IMO. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the Module of AWB, you know any language/coding related with that. Check this edit for an example[1], de-links location on Persondata. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

script = module. You 'll have to make a tweak or ask the guy who created this. I think this was created long before Persondata appears. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The geolocation links are removed by the AWB module along the same principles as for my removing wikilinks in general – major geographical features, world cities, states where these are followed by cities that are already linked. Except for 6 countries whose links are removed almost universally, country links are removed only when they are preceded by another wikilink and when the linked country is followed by a line feed. That's why countries are removed in personendata templates.

Chances are, if another site uses personendata, they won't have the same conventions as us, and our linking syntax is irrelevant to them; a link that exists nowhere else except in persondata pollutes our own wikilinking data and gives misleading results for [what links here] functions. Also, even if linking within personendata was necessary, I've never worked out how to make a script module avoid the template and its contents. But if it's upsetting people so much, I'm prepared to disable the country unlinking, but that would perpetuate the overlinking that exists throughout the encyclopaedia. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ohconfucius is there no way that you disable fixing inside Persondata? I know that the entire conversion is bases on assumptions. So you could also just open a discussion on Persondata's talk page.? -- Magioladitis (talk)

It's binary, all or nothing, because I'm no programmer and simply don't know how to do that for AWB. This unlinking has never been an issue until now, and if persondata is stopping, unlinkiing of their contents would surely be of no consequence. I can certainly open a discussion there.  Ohc ^¡digame! 15:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: I think we can, because most of the pages that have persondata, they haven't linked to geolocations, professions, etc. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not assume that all the tools/scripts/modules you find and use work fine because this is what I think you do. It looks like you use semi-automated scripts indiscriminately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes and it is pretty clear that I haven't delinked overlinking on persondata since the above post, I will shortly inform you once I will resolve. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any strong feelings about how data should be in Persondata since I believe soon Persondata will get deleted and the information can be obtained directly via the infoboxes but since then let's stick to the agreed rules. The guys working with Persondata certainly know more about it. Thanks for contacting the script creator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Check Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Overlinking in Persondata. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dogs

Since till now WikiProject Dogs had only 3 files tagged for their project, did you contact and you are sure that they want files to be tagged for their project? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There were few files for military, I tagged 100s after contacting. It is not really formal. I think you can tag any file that is related with the project just like you can create any article related with the project. I've been through and previously you had to tag as 'class=file' but now it is automatically done. I created a article related with dogs today, since there is no category for the pictures only project may help. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Today is my day of funny questions, isn't it? Not all WikiProjects are interested on every possible page. So not all projects want files to be tagged as not all projects have class=C, etc. WikiProject Greece, for instance, is only interested in a very limited amount of redirects. While Wikiproject US in the past was tagging pages indiscriminately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to make clear: My motivation is to improve your editing style! :) Keep editing. Just be more careful that what you do is not controversial. Take pre-cautions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I know it has always been :-) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not add quality assessments to WikiProjects not supporting them

Why did you assess for the WikiProject The Bill? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed it too, per overtagging. Hardly half-sentence. Informed the wikiproject. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject chose not to add importance/class the same way WikiProject Songs, one of the largest WikiProject, does not add importance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

For a WikiProject that has less than 300 articles I think it's normal not to be interested for class/importance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct and I don't classify the importance of those wikiproject. But if someone had added importance, the reason would remain unknown until the editor clarifies. Sometimes they do it on purpose. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

And WikiProject Chicago does not have the same criteria as WikiProject Biography this is the reason that when my bot ran it did not classes for WP Chicago to let the WP Chicago community decide about the class. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I assessed them and informed tonythetiger once about the article and its issues. He had no problem. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to help the WikiProjects you should first check what they do. Blind tagging won't be any good. I also do not like the fact that you decide importance rating without being a member of the projects and without checking what the wikiprojects do because there is a chance the that the projects have a different approach in some things. WikiProjects do not have the same criteria and priorities otherwise we would not have to add classes and importance separately. Moreover, some projects choose not to have specific classes or not to have importance. And perhaps there is more. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I usually decide importance of only those subjects about which I know. I've rated the articles of WP:France because I had the idea of the importance. Any article that has been added to WikiProject:Biography don't require any importance. Class is usually same for all articles and 95% of these articles have to be stub or start. Probably that's why even after 10,0000s of such edits I've seen no revert of my edit, one more reason is that I usually read about the particular wikiproject before I would start assessing multiple articles. If you join the wikiproject, next question will be "For how long you've been a member?", "What you've done", then "How many you've invited", it is a lot about the accuracy and knowledge that can be implemented even without joining a wikiproject or dedicating. There are no restriction or at least the last 3(biography, France, football) that I assessed had none. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The projects with quality assessment can be found here: Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment. Not all projects have quality assessment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes and it is about 197. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A small minority but still. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt account

I keep going with my remarks: Since you edit a lot and you are willing to help you should be more careful with the rules. Please do not use your alternative account for commenting. All commenting should be done by your main account. I understand that only comment that you did most probably was by mistake, I am just giving you an advice for future reference. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you are sure? Before I would create another account I had asked King of hearts(SPI clerk) about using talk page with 2 accs, he said "If it is disclosed, then pretty much everything is OK given that we treat the two accounts as one person (so you can't still can't make four reverts in 24 hours)." I still signed like it is my main account so that people won't confuse. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Same reason we don't use our bot accounts on talk pages. It's best to only use your main account to not confuse people. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot account and alternative account are different. Bot can be used only for what it was assigned. No such rule applies on alternative account. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It makes it more difficult to follow edits and discussions if they are split in multiple accounts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It may and such difficulty can be sorted in a few seconds. Hopefully you know now that it is allowed and nothing can be done against that since the owner is treating them as one person. This treatment is not just limited with the owner but also with others, suppose if main account is blocked, alternate account will be blocked too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Commenting from a second account serves none of the purposes described at WP:DOPPELGANGER unless I miss something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You are arguing over making it harder, not easier, for people to follow. I think you are starting to take things too personally. Calm down. We aren't attacking you, just giving advice to make it easier for others. Bgwhite (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:DOPPELGANGER? It is an essay that doesn't say anything about accounts that I've created. See this way, "occults" and "occultzone" have different meaning, it had to be "0ccults" for "Occults" or "0ccultZ0ne" for "OccultZone", then surely. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link. I should have used WP:VALIDALT. I refer to the entire paragraph. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

And what I wrote it was supposed to be an advice to help other editors. It's not a warning or something. If there is not a serious reason to use alt account better stick to the main account. To help talk page stalkers, edit counters, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Alright then. Let's talk about Bgwhite. If it is all about "laugh and cry" then above messages are self-explanatory, he has made us laugh so many times but he has also made others cry.[2],[3] What can be done about him? You have got a higher level account in this MMORPG so you can inform. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody was aggressive with you. You edit a lot so it's normal that you get a lot of remarks and hints. Moreover, please do not address personal attacks against anyone. I fail to see why you react like that. IMO, you edit a lot without considering all the parameters and we try to help each other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You actually took that seriously? It was meant to be humorous. You said it before and I considered. Although, this one is pretty unclear, "please do not address personal attacks against anyone", you aren't allowed? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Then i guess i can keep bugging you for every mistake you do to help you improve. :) --Magioladitis (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Promotional userpage

First, mark the page for speedy deletion with {{db-g11}}. Then report the user to WP:WPSPAM (although I might wait and see if they try to recreate it. Most spammers and promo accounts won't come back after we take action). Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Marked both, lets watch. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

Thanks for you assistance earlier and for the good advice. Just take a look at Brita von Horn as well. Thanks again. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done and you are welcome. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you use Reflinks to create the citation templates? There were several mistakes in the citation templates, which I fixed in this edit. Please be sure you check the templates before you add them. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Cite4wiki's older version. I don't use reflinks, because of its "autogenerated1", and it messes up the current version. If it was reflinks it would've done same with every reference, I had checked a few when I was copying, I can't understand the words in Swedish that well so there is some potential in dating, I didn't thought of erasing. There is one URL I couldn't access so I added nothing other than the URL. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Shapies hoax

Hi OccultZone; the tag doesn't refer to the existence of a show called The Shapies, rather the claim that there has been 250 new episodes and over ten years worth of production in the space of the last six months. The producer says not. If you want to take over the resolution, feel free. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@MartinSFSA: It has to refer to the existence or else it is incorrect. If you have doubts about the content, you can just remove it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, no thank you. The user has been warned, the content removed and replaced. Again, feel free to resolve it. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hoax has been removed. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

noinclude

If you do an edit such as this, please remember to bracket the speedy tag with <noinclude>…</noinclude>. Otherwise it will cause all the transcluded pages to be put into CAT:CSD. But in this case it would have been better to leave the AfD nomination in place and close it yourself as withdrawn. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure and thanks for deleting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Extended content

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Great Jones Street (novel) 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: | caption = "Great Jones Street" by Don DeLillo.]]<!--prefer 1st edition--> It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Great Soviet Encyclopedia 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: |alt=Title page of the 3rd ed. (in Russian), 1st vol.]] issued in 1981). Volume 24 is in two books, one of them being a full-sized book about the USSR) – all with about 21 million words,<ref>Kister, p. 365</ref> and the chief editor being [[Alexander It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Guess How Much I Love You 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: |alt=Cover artwork of the original ''Guess How Much I Love You'']] It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Links to xxxx year in yyyy

I think these links were intended to be there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't recall the current consensus on this one. You may be right, you may be not. Is this covered by OVERLINKING? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing casing inside DEFAULTSORT

Morning. Defaultsort is case-insensitive. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be using an older version of AWB or the module used is out-dated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing EngvarB and Use dmy dates

Last question for now! What is the reason of removing EngvarB and Use dmy dates in here and in other places? As far as I know the latter says "do not remove the template without valid reason, such as a determination the article uses or should use a different date format." Maybe I am missing something? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Any better article require those tags? It doesn't, they are outdated too.

Any link, already existing in template is duplicate link.

I am on comp, it has older version, can't update on laptop or run anymore like I had told on WT:AWB OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

EngvarB and Use dmy dates never get outdated. There are there to stay forever. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is how bots and editor know which date format to use. Otherwise, editor woud be able to use American date format in UK-related pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I did it only for certain pages, not all. I have removed it from the code and replaced[4] back. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What kind of script/module is this that changes DEFAULTSORT in such a trivial way? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

On the original problem: When bots ran on unlinking dates were instructed not to remove links to xxxx year in yyyy. So please do not do it neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Added dash and repaired the default sort, there was multiple effect. You cannot capitalize a letter that is meant to remain uncaptalized in defaultsort. Pretty common though. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Date formats and AWB

Please do not change date formats with AWB, as you did at Sie Po Giok. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style: Retaining the existing variety and WP:DATERET, we should not change the date format unless there is a consensus for it. To do so wholesale using AWB violates Rules of use #2 and may end with AWB privileges being revoked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also, double check the changes you are making. Hoa Siang In Giok is the name of a publisher, and as such the "In" should remain capitalized. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: No idea about that, I had written the dates per WP:MOSNUM. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I just checked, the rule #2 has been discussed before too. It usually applies on those changes that are effecting text of the article, like BCE/BC or AD/CE. Since most of the articles follow the similar style of number and dates, many others have messed up with '25-5-2014', like that. You can revert if you see any change against the consensus, it shouldn't be repeated. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not done by AWB's general fixes. AWB has routines to check British/American/International date variations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes they aren't, they are done by users. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This was done by you. You changed a date format in an Australian book in US date format. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors doing this should stop. If you see any others doing it please leave them messages. This is the English Wikipedia not the British nor the American Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Doing what ? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Date format should not change from dmy to mdy randomly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSNUM comma should be there. Problem was on the order of months and days. Restored. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Check WP:STRONGNAT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

---

You deleted this the first time. It is meant to be up for discussion. If you do not want to discuss, then I'll remove the AWB bit. I want to hear from others. I want to improve your use of AWB so you can continue using it and use it better. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

---

I have to ask you to please stop using AWB until some problems are rectified.

1. You are editing waaaay to fast. Today, there have been 8 edits a minute with upto 17 edits in one minute (~July 20 19:20z) the past few days. This is entirely too fast. It almost feels like you are doing a bot because AWB bots run at 7-8 edits a minute. At 8 edits a minute, there is no way you are looking at the article for mistakes done by AWB. At 17 edits a minute, you have to be using a bot or two different AWBs and just pressing save.

• • I never made 17 edits in one minute. But I've read before and it was under ARBcom that you are allowed to make as many edits you want to, there is no guidelines or rules against that. While you create wikiprojects you may even exceed 23 edits a minute. The editing restrictions include cosmetic changes or those edits that break things(templates, sentences, categories), both I haven't done. You can get bot only for a assigned task, it cannot be used for many tasks that quickly only your account can be used for that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

1. You are doing way too much trivial stuff. [5], [6], [7] and [8] I've asked you many times not to do trivial edits.

• • Just like others this edit is not trivial, apart from dozens of blank fields, previous version of the page linked Penguin bird for a book publisher. [9] is correction of a wrong default sort. Haven't checked others but surely they have effect as I have even minor fixes disabled. [10] is not trivial either, it has effect on the page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

1. The above also removes the first instance of a wikilink. BMK has also mentioned this. There is no rule that wikilinks should be removed from ledes. In fact, ledes are one area specifically mentioned that should have wikilinks (WP:BUILD). This also goes against AWB rule #3

• • Some people don't have idea about the linking, but if they know once that no FA or most of the GA links to unnecessary amount of professions, geolocations etc, removing them is improvement and done after numerous consensus on linking guidelines. A link should not be overlinked from start. So if they are not aware about the linking, and every single profession or location has been linked, what should be done? Maybe they can advise "don't do it", but usually that is same as saying "don't remove unreliable source". You read WP:LINKSTYLE? The last point, it discourages the overlinking. I don't revert back where editor still wants the links to profession, geolocations, but always done by someone else who is using any similar script. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

1. You are being warned too many times of things going wrong. Crisco 1492's mention on dates. Magioladitis on many things. So, please stop using AWB for the time being. I'm about togo to bed and will let others talk. Bgwhite (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Magioladitis said not to remove dmy date or engvar tag, I have disabled that and date changes. But issue ends there, not sure what has to be done about it when the step has been already taken. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think Occult Zone sees what is wrong with his/her editing... that's worrisome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Bgwhite hasn't checked the edits he is talking about, check this edit, that he considered as 'trivial', which was full of blank fields and a wikilink to Penguin bird when it was the name of book publisher. Same with every other edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the change of date style and removal of valid templates without giving a warning in edit summary and editing too fast not giving the chance for people to check why these mass changes happened. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Rectified too, disabled the template setting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There are 3-4 problems in question. It's good that you keep improving. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the feeling you experiment with scripts/modules dine by other which in many cases could be outdated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

One is with dating. If you are using the basic format of dates, like noted above that there are 2 types, per WP:TIES, dating is often hard to determine.

2nd is underlinking. Already addressed that, you can remove the link of those subjects that are easy to understand and anything else that is used in daily life.(knife, novel, book, etc) Same applies on infoboxes. Although I didn't knew about persondata, nor I have found any so I had opened a discussion on persondata today.

3rd is trivial edits, if you correct a default sort along with the dash, and if you remove blank fields and a link to Penguin for book publisher it is not considered as trivial change but a move to rectify a funny change. 80% of my edits have crossed 25 bytes and 99% crosses 10 bytes. None of them are cosmetic. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it's a mixture of trivial edits and controversial edits. If I had to choose I would prefer if you did cosmetic changes using AWB's genfixes instead of changing dates, doing controversial unlinking etc. I think the main concern is that you may need to slow down since I discovered there was a problem after 750 edits. the problem with Persondata is not that big since there is no strict rule. But the problem with dates? It's a big no no. The problem is unlinking the lead section is also a problem. Not as serious as the dates one though. Why you have all this rush to edit so fast? Yesterday, you did a series of good edits. You have 100k edits. No reason to experiment with scripts written in 2009. I hope you take these as friendly advice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Take under consideration that some scripts may have been used for very specific tasks and for very specific list of pages and not for general use. Sometimes it's also good asking the person who created the script before using it. They may have some advice for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, I am trying to make a code so that Engvar and Dmy can be applied on those that use American ones, until then I can stop changing dates. If anything is objectionable, it might be dmy, but not anything else really. I did few thousands of unlinking and I had complaint from only 1-2 on 2-3 pages. But I was actually correct about unlinking. Right now, on WT:LINK a person tried to get consensus for making multiple links of same thing as well as linking the useless links at least once, it is failing though, if you go through the archives, it has been established for years that you can unlink a useless link. If you run those script or manually check FA articles or half of the GA articles, you will find nothing to underlink. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In unlinking the truth is somewhere in the middle. The script you use removes too much. It removed links in xxxx year in yyyy which as far as I recall it should not be removed from infoboxes. Moreover, mass unlinking the lead summary is not a good idea. There is not rule say do it. Getting a few complains also means nothing because nowhere mass unlinking of common terms was authorised. On the other hand mass unlinking of dates has consensus and was done by bot. Unlinking of terms without checking of edits does not sound safe. By editing that fast it's a sign that you do not really check your edits. This was remarked in many cases. You spend much time in Wikipedia. Make it worth! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE the last point. I might be repeating the previous suggestion, but you cannot link any link that has been provided on See also and template. You can ask John, these articles are not even B class, it is obvious that they have got issues. Many of them are badly written per WP:OPENPARA as well, but I have separate list for that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, if a page is linked in lead section then there is no need to be in see also section. And "cleanup" is not the best edit summary when doing something controversial and non-trivial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

True and see also is only for those links that appears to fit nowhere but they have still got importance. But one of these pages had link like "he was an [[Irish|Irish]] an [[King|King]] who [[List of Irish kings|reigned]] during XXXX - XXXX" Though the link "List of Irish kings" was mentioned on see also. Such leads are not only contrary to linking guideline, but also for disambiguation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's another example, on Five Plays, John had delinked multiple overlinks[11], but issue was still not resolved, I just made one.[12] Wouldn't doubt if overlinking may be observed even after multiple attempts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

John said "If people challenge you, you should refer them to WP:OVERLINK which recommends not making such links."[13] Let us have a wider view. You see that it was incorrect to overlink since the policy of WP:Link, if some editor has incorrectly edited and added too many links, it must be rectified. If you have any opinion against it, please join the current discussion.[14] If passed, you cannot remove double links. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that this discussion started in May... -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view, this means that bot and bot-like edits in either direction should be prohibited until there is a clear consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Should've done under 1 week, but one person is trying hard to make WP:POINT on that section. How come those edits have to be prohibited? They are always ongoing as long as they are constructive in real sense. People do object but only the policy change can help.

Lets get this together. Since even Crisco 1492 had agreed that I wasn't wrong with the MOS:NUM, but he addressed that was no consensus and the page' style remained for ages. I wouldn't be correcting or changing on such pages. But as for overlinking, I've made over thousands of such changes, none of them have been reverted and there are only 2 people(including Bgwhite) who disagree, I am waiting on Bgwhite or anyone else who have been linked. But clearly the consensus is against the overlinking, like it has been re-informed above. Even AWB warns against the double linking, you can clear each of them, because even important subject has to be linked only once. Persondata was questioned by you, but I haven't touched that for almost 3 days now, apparently the consensus is to never link anything on persondata, lets look forward to it, discussion yet to be completed on WT:Persondata OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The opposite of overlinking is not unlinking all double links and all common terms. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've highlighted the edits that I've made. If it is specific for readers it might double linked, but what? It can be predecessor, successor, etc. I never unlinked them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It was only a general comment. I am not in favour of overlinking but also not in favour or mass unlinking. Mass unlinking of years has been discussed and decided by the community. Then a bot was created. There was no POV pushing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I had discussed about Lightbot and other delinkers with a ARBcom member, they told about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Remedies, included many restrictions then, but finally the policy had to be in favor of delinking after months. How many of these people are still working on delinking? Few. It is obvious that you wouldn't see any "block till assurance", because current policy contradicts the former rules. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Find a Grave

Could you explain why your bot deletes links to Find a Grave? They seem to have been acceptable so far. Kraxler (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kraxler: It has been considered many times [15], [16] there were 10,000 links in 2010 and even now there are 10,000 links. I agree that many removed and many added, but they are contradictory to external links. Last time writing for a GA, it was told that findagrave must be removed. Don't look at small articles, try looking at the bigger ones such as Elvis Presley, Maya Angelou or even Frank Sinatra. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kraxler which bot? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably referring to your AWB... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Still sounds odd to hear, especially from a user who has reviewer right on en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, OccultZone: AWB does not automatically remove FindAGrave. Can I see some diffs? OccultZone, did you massively remove links from pages? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• It shouldn't change date formats too, but that's marked as AWB. Wouldn't surprise me if OccultZone has been removing Findagrave links while browsing with AWB. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather hard to dig up diffs, even from a couple days ago, when there are 1500 edits a day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Magiladitis, you know that fundamental settings of AWB won't even remove a blacklisted link. Yes I manually removed findagrave from those articles where you can find a linfarm or already 2-3 external links, checked them too, link only shows the picture of a grave and "Name(18xx-19xx)", but nothing more than that. I do that by hands too, many times I remove+replace wordpress sources too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 I already left him messages for date format and defaultsort. I have not noticed the FindAgrave thing. For blacklisted urls: AWB won;t let you save the page if there is a blacklisted url. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Added above. Be it 2010 or 2014(today), there are 10,000 links to findagrave and only the wikiproject of findagrave spammed those links, most of them. So you cannot find even a few links. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Magioladitis: Short of having a tool which can search all of Occult's contributions quickly, I can't provide diffs, but I would be surprised if it wasn't done while browsing with AWB (likely with a script). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes you can create and add script to AWB's module' feature or just press Ctrl+M. It can be also done for talk pages. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Crisco 1492 I agree. It's clear that AWB combined with a script is used. As I instructed above third-party modules/scripts maybe outdated and/or working for a limited scope. I adviced OccultZone not to edit that fast and not use third party tools without first instructing their creator. I am also unable to review that many edits every day. Today I spent my day commenting here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Re Magioladitis - Well, AWB is not exactly a bot, but since the question was asked above whether OccultZone just presses "save" without checking, you may permit me a bit of poetic license.

Re OccultZone: The abovementioned discussions have not arrived at any consensus. Find a Grave is certainly not a reliable source, and should not be used as an inline citation. However it is a source, and has been generally accepted to be added as an external link. The reliability can be judged by a photo of the tombstone, the mention of the burial plot, or images and original newspaper clippings appended to the entry there. That such a link may be unnecessary for a GA (because there are better sources for the same info), does not warrant deletion from short bios of not so well known people where info is hard to come by. To say "This or that is not good for X, so we will remove it from Y" contradicts the rationale explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Every single article should be considered on its own merits. I'll re-instate the Find a Grave link to any of the several thousand pages on my watchlist where you delete it, if I think the link is appropriate. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kraxler: Findagrave should not be added to any external links. WP:Other stuff exists is an essay and it doesn't apply here, you cannot add spam link to just any article. I suggest you to open a conversation on WT:External links before you reinstate the links that were solely added by the members from the same project. You can consider replacing, but I hope it has more than just one picture of grave and a one liner. I will probably open new discussion on external links. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone deleted it, and I re-instated it, at Francis B. Spinola and Robert B. Van Valkenburgh, giving edit summary AWB delinking. Please show me a link to a guideline ot the MoS that says "Find a Grave should not be added to external links" verbatim or at least very similar. Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't show you "a link to a guideline ot the MoS that" forbids wordpress links either. But again you can remove that link as improvement and there won't be any objection, because we've been through that many times. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not mix up apples and oranges. I asked you to show me a link to a guideline ot the MoS that says "Find a Grave should not be added to external links, and just don't change the subject. I'd accept consensus, but your personal opinion is as irrelevant as my own here. I warn you not to edit war. You can start a new discussion (which will end without consensus) if you like. By the way, the links were manually added by the creators of the articles, not by any Find a Grave spammers. I've added many myself, for the abovementioned reason, and I've never edited Find a Grave. Kraxler (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kraxler: Some more archives for you,[17], [18], discarded as spam link and fansite. Dougweller asked that the link should be blacklisted. So I advise you to just want to remove findagrave.com link or just replace with other appropriate link. You can probably find many better than this website. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)