User talk:OccultZone

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your new page patrolling; it's most appreciated! Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have recognition. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my edits?

please explain!

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggajat (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jaggajat: Which article you are referring to? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Meaning

Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.?--Vin09 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If same argument has been passed more than one. It will fall under the Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. It is not very easy to discover, thus there is a script called User:Frietjes/findargdups. Recommended. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI

I started an ANI discussion. See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider linking to the SPI. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

sock

@OccultZone:Is it correct format for filing sock.--Vin09 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear and it looks like you are only mentioning some of their edits. You have to outline that how multiple accounts are abused by the editor in question and it should be more than just "revert" or editing same articles. You can provide diffs that show a similar type of behavior. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So, how to withdraw sock investigation. See this edit--Vin09 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You can write on the SPI that you are withdrawing the report. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis Sette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadcaster (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories for years in literature

I can't see any harm in doing that - probably a good idea. Deb (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Check

Merge proposal is genuine? Also check this--Vin09 (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You can expand these articles. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any idea of later but the former is just a list which I have cleaned and looking somewhat good. Else it was a long list like a directory.--Vin09 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can we name it as List of educational......--Vin09 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  You can start a page move request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Casual

Just a casual question. Where are you from?, wanted to ask from long time. Will wiki permit such casual questions?--Vin09 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Balija dynasties did I de-orphaned it? pls check it?--Vin09 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is still backed by Balija. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

didn't get you?--Vin09 (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• now* backed by Balija. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

backed means linked? right?--Vin09 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer the first line. That's OK if you aren't interested. Fine.--Vin09 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Lowden and J. Alastair Montgomerie

Hi there, Many thanks for reviewing some of my recent articles. Could you please review the above articles, when you have time. Many thanks.Gomach (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphan

To de-orphan an article, on the destination article we need to introduce the source (orphan) article name link?--Vin09 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have to create a backlink of an orphaned article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TCKTKtool reported by User:Padenton (Result: ). Thank you.

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rape in India. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ^X 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: Have you counted? I had made 2 reverts in last 2 days because they concerned WP:BLPCRIME. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

OccultZone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had made only two reverts in 34 hours,[1], [2] because they concerned WP:BLPCRIME. In fact I was the one to open discussion right after first revert, check [3]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 7:37 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

I see no reason for Swarm (talk · contribs)'s block. No prior warning was given. Two reverts in a five days, one of which I can understand (rape of 71-year old nun) doesn't make a pattern or warrant a block. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I had made only 2 reverts in last 34 hours. Let me explain you some of other aspects that even if I had made more reverts, I was still exempted from the 3rr.

Removal of any unproven and non-notable allegations about living persons is allowed.

Reverting an obvious sock puppet is another exemption from 3rr. Proof of reverting the sock puppet was the ANEW thread itself where we had discussed the sock puppetry.

My edits were also removing the COPYVIO, check [4][5], Zhanzhao has plagiarized them.

Swarm, I have to ask you, how you could make these blocks without even reading the complaint of WP:ANEW or without checking the content in question? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, he's only made two reverts over two days (not counting the initial removal of the information). 72 hours seems high for someone with no previous block log or formal warnings on their talk page. Can you clarify your block reasoning for me? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I also have emailed to JamesBWatson with additional details. I hope he will look into this matter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in on this, but since I'm being brought into this by OccultZone, I'd like to point out that I was not the one who added the copyvio text, I just reverted content that is pre-written before. The onus is on you, OccultZone, to point out which post I, personally, was supposed to plagiarised, since you are accusing me of it. I am fairly certain that somewhere earlier in the history of the article, you will notice that someone else was the one who originally added that. My fault and mistake, as is Swarms, might have been to not notice that it was copyvio, which can easily be addressed with copyediting, if you would have only pointed that out earlier that it was a copyvio issue than all the other tangents you were going off on. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It will be you who will be considered as the violator of the copyrights since you were eager to restore the content that is also violating a good bunch of policies. In fact Zhanzhao, it is more clearer that you were abusing that IP and the new account for keeping your preferred content. Given your history of abusing sock puppets on this article and propagating your views without making any disagreement with other violator of WP:BLPCRIME, WP:CON, and other guidelines. It is simply obvious. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Gauntlet thrown, challenge accepted. Please do file another SPI, cos I'm 100% sure I will be vindicated. In return, I expect you to apologize to me after its been proven that those were not my socks. And the administrator/clerk who does the Checkuser should also point out that OccultZone has been making frivalous sock accusations when things does not go his way. Deal? PS: I've copyedited the identified copyvio writeup, so thats not an issue anymore. The attack on the swiss takes key points, but is written quite differently from the source. Next time, if you're concerned about copyvio, JUSt SAY SO.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you are using an outdated excuse of "copyediting" for deflecting from the gross BLP violation that you are committing on that article and using socks. I mean you could've disagreed to some degree with other blatant sock account, but why you would disagree with yourself? It was proven that you were violating the WP:ILLEGIT policy and you are still doing it now. If they hadn't sympathised and considered that you were aware of WP:SOCK guidelines since you were blocked a few years ago for evading your block, none of us would've been blocked today for removing your content that has violated WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTABILITY. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Bgwhite! I have analyzed the issue a bit more. I've checked that Swarm's other blocks are also objectionable.

• Vtk1987(2 reverts)
• Human3015(1 revert)
• Padeton(2 reverts)

While WP:ANEW requires 3-4 reverts in last 24 hours, Padenton was the one to address this edit war, he was discussing the issue and he was not going back to restore his version. They all were avoiding the violation WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COPYVIO, WP:ILLEGIT and removing the non-notable events. They were equally opposing a 3rr evading IP who recently created a new account, TCKTKtool, called other editor(Vtk1987) a sock and continued to violate the these policies.

After Swarm had blocked me, he went back to change the block settings, for explaining the reason that why he was blocking. It tells his actions are riddled with faults. I don't think that Swarm had even thought of protecting the page, and even if a non-admin editor would've thought of making 6 blocks even after agreeing that IP was evading 3rr with account. I am inclined to believe that if Swarm is not capable of understanding the stuff before making these blocks, then he don't deserve that admin bit. I am also thinking of taking this to ArbCOM. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm, Padenton, Zhanzhao, and Human3015: Occult, I don't know Swarm and this certainly doesn't arise to taking it to ArbCOM. I see no malice in Swarm's actions. I personally would have protected the page (I just did for 72 hours) and blocked TCKTKtool, but other admins would probably agree some more blocks were warranted. I do not understand the block of you, Padeton or Human3015. If you and Padeton got blocked, Zhanzhao should also be blocked for reverting too. In the end, Swarm made a judgement call. This shouldn't go any further.

I'm conflicted on unblocking Padeton and Human3015 because I'm in territory I've never been in. If I unblocked Occult, then I should be fair and unblock them too. However, Occult, Padeton, Zhanzhao and Human3015 are at fault. While I don't think it reached block level, all four of you were involved in an edit warring. On the plus side, a talk discussion did get started. Towards the end, it got confusing with a sock puppet entering the fray. I think with the sock puppet entering, things completely broke down and went to hell.

Zhanzhao, thank you for taking this matter to DRN. I wouldn't have done the revert you did at the end, but DRN was the right call. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually TCKTKtool was the one who brought it to DRN. But I posted on the Talk page of the article in question about the DRN, just to keep everyone in the loop. As for OccuoltZone taking popshots at me being TCKTKtool/IP's sock or vice versa, do feel free to run a thorough check on me against them. Guess its too much to hope for a gentlemanly apology after its proven to be unfounded? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

After multiple instances of socking, you must have learned new ways. Given your history of socking on this article and behavior, it is simply obvious. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Vtk1987 and Padeton had made only 2 reverts. While Human3015 made one revert. Yes they should be unblocked because the article is now protected. This SPI explains how Zhanzhao, TCKTKtool and IP are same person. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am highly wondering that why Swarm or anyone would make these malformed blocks, and go offline right after I had pinged him on my talk page. He is usually online at this time[6] but due to some reasons(that we don't know of) he has not yet responded. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, stop taking potshots at Zhanzhao. You only filed a case and nothing is proven. You do owe Zhanzhao and apology for saying they are a sockpuppet and that they are wikilawyering. If they are a sockpuppet, then you gloat at seeing the blocked message on their user page, otherwise stop. In this latest round, Zhanzhao has done nothing wrong except for their last revert. You have made the unfounded accusations.

I also told you to drop about being blocked. Stop accusing Swarm of "malformed blocks" and any other conspiracy theories. Swarm live in Florida and is asleep, which I'm about to go do.

Drop it. Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I did that because even for making an allegation, one has to be sure about it. Good night and I will surely see what will happen next. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• The accusations here are ridiculous. Of course I spent a significant amount of time fully reviewing the situation, just as I would any other ANEW report (something Bgwhite apparently didn't do, as their unblocking rationale doesn't even make sense). Do you really think I just arbitrarily slapped you with a 3 day block for two reverts because I hate you? You've been edit warring over that content for quite a protracted period of time and were continuing the same edit war as of the ANEW report. ANEW doesn't require any certain number of reverts, contrary to that untrue and ridiculous claim that 3-4 reverts are required. An edit war can contain multiple parties on each side (and in this case, did) and that does not excuse editors from participating in the edit war, and editors can be blocked without violating WP:3RR. The block (and every other one) was perfectly in accordance with blocking and edit warring policy. BLPCRIME is meant to prevent harm to persons accused of committing crimes. Your BLP defense is debatable at best and it's certainly not a "gross" violation. Sources were provided and no living persons were identified in the text, thus the argument that it was in dire need of removal to prevent harm isn't a particularly strong one. BLPCRIME isn't a blanket ban on any mention of allegations of crime in an article. Next, the article is under discretionary sanctions and any uninvolved administrator is authorized to impose blocks (or other sanctions) to facilitate the smooth running of the project. I'm not sure whether you're aware of this so I declined to invoke it, but just as an aside, a higher standard of collaborative conduct is expected on that article, especially from editors who should know better. Another thing, no warning was given? Seriously? Apart from the fact that there's no requirement to warn someone before blocking them for edit warring (in fact policy specifically states that a warning is not required), you shouldn't need a warning, as you're supposed to be familiar with that policy already. Lastly, feel free to elaborate on which text was a copyvio. Obviously you can remove copyvios without it being considered edit warring. However I find it hard to believe that all of that text you were edit warring over was in copyright violation. I'll let this go as I don't really care that much, but just to be clear, I completely reject your arrogant, self-righteous condemnation of the block as abuse of the tools and stand behind it as fully in accordance with policy. Swarm ^X 15:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)