Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:07, 16 July 2014

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

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 But in this case it would have been better to leave the AfD nomination in place and close it yourself as withdrawn.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

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)

Any link, already existing in template is duplicate link. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:29, 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)

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)

This is a minor problem. Just check the script and see if you can fix it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages not the British nor the American Misplaced Pages. -- 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)

Stop using AWB

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 had got that, better not too late. Now after a huge discussion, this post can be used if there are any concern about delinking. With just anyone. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

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.
2. You are doing way too much trivial stuff. , , and I've asked you many times not to do trivial edits.
3. 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
4. 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)

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) @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)

2) 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. is correction of a wrong default sort. Haven't checked others but surely they have effect as I have even minor fixes disabled. is not trivial either, it has effect on the page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

4) 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)

Defaultsort is case-insensitive, so edits such as this are not necessary. You may also want to use a more specific edit summary, and consider using the Find & Replace option to add replacements to the edit summary. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:29, 16 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ] an ] who ] 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, but issue was still not resolved, I just made one. 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." 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 , 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.

If not 'exactly' then you probably meant to say that AWB is approximately a bot? Still wrong. Sorry but findagrave has been thoroughly checked by number of senior editors and it is better for a encyclopedia to remove spam links. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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,, , 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)

Your archives mentioned above are just short statements of opinion, not even a discussion of the merits of the links. The question is: Has the link been blacklisted? A simple yes or no would suffice, if yes show me a link. Kraxler (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Those archives are enough for affirming that this link must not be used. So you will wait till blacklisting? It is not necessary that only those links should be avoid that are blacklisted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Those archives are not enough for affirming that this link must not be used. Those archives fall even short of a discussion of the subject. I take it, your answer means that it is currently not blacklisted, ergo its use is free for anybody who deems it appropriate. Come back when consensus has been established otherwise. In the meanwhile I urge you to refrain from edit-warring. By the way, please show me links to the many better sites that could substitute Find a Grave, that would be a real help. Kraxler (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kraxler: Maybe not enough for you but still enough for those who don't keep them even on new stub articles, you've been told enough times now. 1 edit is not edit warring, read WP:EW properly. You can wait, whenever there will be concerning discussion about this website I will surely inform you first. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from considering something for you or for me or for those. Policy and guidelines, after consensus has been reached, is binding for everybody. Please read WP:Consensus to get to know how consensus is achieved. Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I know about that so you can less worry about it and think more about the credibility of a spam link, if there is any. Consider reading WP:ELPEREN#Find-a-Grave, WP:ELNO#EL1. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler Find a grave is not on the spam blacklist. Links can be deleted from the blacklist and be fine to use. Find A Grave is an acceptable external link, but I wouldn't use it as a reference. Blogs and forums can be used as external links too. Removing Find a Grave links is not being done per any rule or consensus. Continuing to remove the links while discussing can be viewed as edit warring. Bgwhite (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You've actually repeated what he was saying. Although I've referred to WP:ELPEREN#Find-a-Grave, WP:ELNO#EL1 which is probably enough to acknowledge that it shouldn't be used as external link, but if someone still wants to, I will look for consensus on appropriate noticeboard. Later. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kraxler:. No. WP:ELPEREN#Find-a-Grave says "rarely" not never. A link showing the headstone and the exact location where a person is buried would be one of those rare cases. WP:ELPEREN#Find-a-Grave even says "...such as valuable images and location information of graves." There is no way to arbitrarily delete any find-a-grave without knowing the context and what the link consists of. You are arbitrarily deleting the link. Same thing goes for IMDb. One cannot arbitrarily delete IMDb refs even though WP:ELPEREN says "Generally no"

Arbitrarily deleting is the point of my comments. There is absolutely no way you can know if this is or isn't an acceptable case while doing 8 edits a minute. You cannot say all Find a Grave sites must be removed. Bgwhite (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree about arbitarily deleting, but all webpages don't have it. Only some have. The diffs Kraxler had linked were before 24 hours. What if you can check all pages first and then edit them? Or specifically target those who have used a spam link. IMDB is highly accepted for a external link because it is not a non-affiliated spam link. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in the documentation at Template:Find a Grave. The template has over 17,000 transclusions. GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Already mentioned it twice. Yes it was spammed by a number of members of findagrave wikiproject. Even if one may disagree with its removal, it doesn't change that you are usually told to remove this link, after a while. Find me one FA or even GA that use this link. You never will because it is discarded as fansite and spam link. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be blind. I reread this section twice and don't see any reference to the documentation at Template:Find a Grave. GoingBatty (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Urdu issue

Disruptive editing on Andhra Pradesh page, see this edit1, edit2--Vin09 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Urdu has no connection with Andhra Pradesh, maybe before 1948 there was. But no more. It is not really disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

6 districts of AP are having considerable amout of muslim population and it states it as a second official language. Read 3. Urdu as a Second Official Language reference--Vin09 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Written by a few people who have entitled themselves with a 'p.h.d' degree but it is not really impressive. Cannot be verified. It is a fansite link and not a reliable source. You should avoid using it and if you have found that link somewhere on en.wiki's article space you should remove immediately.

Even if there are 6 districts, it may make some point. But my main motive was to suggest you that those edits are not really disruptive. As per the government site, no official documents are translated to Urdu. Only Telugu or Hindi. If you want to add Urdu you can, but please arrange better source. I am not saying that it is going to be challenged right now but it is a lot better to add now.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

not a disruptive, hence changed the section title, but why I added is I haven't added it, it existed from long time, after bifurcation, people started removing considering the majority urdu speakers in Hyderabad. It is not newly added, it existed from many months. I'll not add unless a proper reference is found.--Vin09 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds better. If you want any more help just post on WT:INB, pretty much you won't need a WP:DR after that. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing Interior reconstruction

I am helping to encourage editors to improve articles to which they have edited or created recently. In regard to the article: Interior reconstruction, the following assessment has been placed on the page:

*{{multiple issues| *{{copy edit|date=June 2014}} *{{technical|date=June 2014}} *{{lead missing|date=June 2014}} *{{Orphan|date=June 2014}} }}

Feel free to remove this post from this talk page if you would like. Since you have shown an interest in this article's improvement I thought you might like to have this information.

Regards,

bpage (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bfpage: I will and don't add page issue templates anywhere other than the article space. The page sends itself to protected categories and it can be harmful for those who use category. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)