This is not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. Riteze (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some other page want to link directly to Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, how would it do that? Riteze (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. Riteze (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. PepperBeast (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. Riteze (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. PepperBeast (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. Riteze (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it you want to link from? PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From here. Riteze (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Wikipedia to suit the needs of your own web site. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There might be many others who might be trying the same. Riteze (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? PepperBeast (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a copy of information from wikipedia is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. Riteze (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. PepperBeast (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest any other way (which you think is sensible) of linking? This and its peers are significant topics, each of which deserves an anchor of their own, irrespective of weather they are linked to any external website or not. Riteze (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bluecoats Drum and Bugle Corps. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simple convenient tag was added to a long section name which contained some special characters too. Your edit is not constructive in this sense. Riteze (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adultery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've now reverted me twice claiming that the material I added was not cited to a reliable source. In point of fact, the material was and is cited to the Brihat Parashastara Hora Shastra, which is used elsewhere in the article as a reliable source. Please read additions more carefully, there was a citation, in ref tags, at the end of the added material. The source cited should be well-known to anyone familiar with the topic. You owe me an apology. Skyerise (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off the high horse. You're not a novice editor and you should be aware of the policies regarding WP:RS. You need to cite sources, not claim you have them and get huffy with me. PepperBeast (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the source was already cited. In the added material the first time I added it, in ref tags, using a source also already used in the article. Get off your own high horse. Your edit summaries justifying both reverts were simply false. I can understand that you might have simply missed the citation the first time. But I pointed out in the edit summary that there already was a citation the second time, and you ignored that and reverted anyway. Simply not cool. Read the edit summaries and read the change log better, chum. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]