User talk:Occurring

Might I have the first word on my talk page? Occurring (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur

Hi Occuring, I have recently seen your edit on the Tupac Shakur article. From reading your changes to it, among other articles that you have made changes to, it is quite evident that you have a very unorthodox type of writing (probably the most unorthodox writing I have ever come across to be honest). Whether English is your first language or not, I would hope that you could read other good articles to take influence from or learn how to write in a more appropriate way because your near enough incomprehensible style of writing is not fitting with how other areas of information are written. Isaacsorry (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bitches Ain't Shit" Comment

Hi Occuring,

I made edits to follow Wikipedia:MOS as well as linking to common words. You went and undid those changes and stated that you do not understand what some words mean so you re-linked them. That is not the proper way to do that. You must use a dictionary. It appears that maybe English is not your primary language, however, this is the English Wikipedia and we have words that do not get linked nor do we link to other articles within Wikipedia for those words.

Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 04:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, cease foisting false, personal speculations and allegations about me via your own misreading of simple English. About the article in question, "Bitches Ain't Shit", as its virtually sole author—who found an amateurish stub and then made it a full article in early 2020—I had placed every word until someone recently added a few instances of The before some newspaper names in footnotes. About this article, I have never even remotely said that I "do not understand what some words mean". My nearest statement, still fundamentally unlike your misreading, was my edit summary that partly says, while I now boldface to aid basic comprehension and critical reading, " 'Hollywood' is wikilinked since many don't know its literal location relative to other LA-area locations and many don't truly understand 'record producer', 'bass guitar', and 'bassist'. Same for term 'de facto' " [diff]. So your misreading merely starts by mistaking the word many to mean "I", and worsens by mistaking complex sets of facts and context about four nouns—why, after all, each has a dedicated article—for merely "what some words mean", your own, mostly misplaced focus on mere basic English comprehension.

That nearsighted focus roughly covers only one wikilinked term—the adjective de facto—which, in fact, is a Latin term imported straight into English. Perhaps that's why Merriam-Webster ranks its lookup popularity in the top 10% of words [citation]. This suggests that it's commonly encountered, but even readers competent in basic English—hence their using an English dictionary—are commonly unsure just what it means. For now, though, I lack the time to further unpack your several, interacting errors and confusions, including your misreading of the relevant passages in Wikipedia's Manual of Style as to overlinking, passages that contradict your fabrication of an objective, universal ban on wikilinking these terms. Merely the first hint that it wasn't overlinking is that where I wrote "record producer and rapper Dr. Dre", rapper was not wikilinked. And another hint is that in an article of roughly 30 000 characters, you found only about half a dozen supposedly objective culprits. — Occurring (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit _(blether) 17:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bitches Ain't Shit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen B.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illmatic

Occurring, while I appreciate the trimming aspect of your edits, your style of writing isn't encyclopedic. In fact, it seems Yoda-ese, with awkward arrangement of grammatical clauses. You need to confer with someone about improving your writing skills, as well as your comprehension of guidelines on the lead; as is, your lead has a lot of irrelevant, poorly worded details like defining Nas as a New York rapper and his age. Piotr Jr. (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amid widespread acclaim, Illmatic was hailed as a masterpiece... is shitty writing compared to the previous version. For example... Piotr Jr. (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is full of synthesized claims and original research too. Piotr Jr. (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Illmatic

Your recent editing history at Illmatic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Piotr Jr. (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have taken issue with your style of writing in the past, and I am in agreement with them after seeing some of the other articles you edit. Piotr Jr. (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issue that you raised. Your other declarations are absurd, based on demonstrable low reading level. Yes, my writing can be too advanced, what I readily admit. But your declarations are over the top. Occurring (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bitches Ain't Shit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BMG, Queensbridge and High hat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bitches Ain't Shit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleazy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitches Ain't Shit

Hey, I've cut down the lede of Bitches Ain't Shit. A lot of the stuff seems irrelevant, such as Tucker using Snoop Dog's album in a congressional hearing (the song is from a Dr. Dre album and isn't on the Snoop Dog album referenced) and details about Snoop Dog's life were getting to coatrack levels. The description of the lyrics should also be in the body rather than the lede. I tried to keep in what I thought was vital/relevant, but the amount of text due to the excessive amount of explanatory notes and references made it difficult to read (see WP:CITEOVERKILL). There's probably some stuff about the song's impact that can be reinserted, but please try to be concise. Having 90 references in the lead is a bit much CiphriusKane (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I feel as if your comments of "When an article just isn't your interest, just admit", accusations of poor English ("Please, cease foisting false, personal speculations and allegations about me via your own misreading of simple English."), and poor reading level ("Your other declarations are absurd, based on demonstrable low reading level.") are personal attacks against other editors. wizzito | say hello! 03:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizzito::Please, practice what you preach or stop using my talkpage to harass me. The only real personal attack anywhere relevant is in your earlier edit summary: "This is giving me a stroke." "this is sadly quite a mess of an article." [diff]. Feigning farcical, personal anguish due to good-faith edits by another editor, who is frequently around lately, is a personal attack, yours.

I repeat, now, my edit summary replying to yours: "I fix some typos and trim direct quotes in explanatory notes. Otherwise, the article is actually quite concise and on topic in line with the viewpoint in reliable sources. How does one explain the contradiction that I wrote an article mostly off topic the topic of 'Bitches Ain't Shit' but allegedly 'overkill citations' to show 'Bitches Ain't Shit' discussed by experts on all of those topics? And article sections are well demarcated by topic. When an article just isn't your interest, just admit."[diff]

Thus, I accepted the actually sensible of your indeed personal attack on me and gratuitous attack on my recent additions—that I should include less direct quotation, particularly where I quote at length in footnotes to ease access to relevant information—but otherwise, your allegations ranged from over the top to just wrong, contradicting Wikipedia guidelines. The lead must summarize the full article, WP:LEAD. And WP:OVERKILL advises trimming six to three if three are especially authoritative, like university presses, not that six must trim to three, let alone three always trim to one.

Again, when too uninterested in a topic to even check the sources and learn the topic—not just a song, but perhaps the most culturally influential song ever—then recuse yourself or withhold personal attack of "giving" you a "stroke". Nearly all the excess detail and quoting was tucked in footnotes—for the persons wanting controversial points demystified—and nobody starts reading the article from the page's bottom. I felt some notes too long, and expected someone apt to gripe but lack strong point. So I planned to trim and partition. But right now, my life is falling apart, why I spent so much time escaping by editing lately, then at times I lag on fixes. Still, I didn't foresee such irrational, phobic attack on my edits. You raised one good point I mostly missed : too much quoting!

Your snotnose "stroke" smear had no business in an edit note and no business thus in my life to repay my contributions, which demonstrate I respect all real criticism and input. And hacking off the lead—how anyone seeking full review in three minutes now needs 30 minutes—spreads your "stroke" to others. Please, do not bypass article issues to again jump on my talkpage personally attacking me, let alone by digging in business not yours and over a year old, between me and someone else that falsely cited Wikipedia guidelines while making gratuitous, personal accusations based on misreading, speculation, and hubris. If Wikipedia superiors will ban me since I properly diagnosed your "stroke", then I'll simply take better care of myself and complete my real writing projects instead of getting passive-aggressive attacks on Wikipedia. — Occurring (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]