| Revision as of 11:01, 29 June 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,372 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:Werieth/201406) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:51, 29 June 2014 edit undoSpideog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers27,254 edits →Your crude and destructive edit: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| It's counterproductive for you to continue to try to get archive.is links removed right now. There are many that would argue that a temporary recess during the new RFC was a good idea. Even if you don't agree, there's one thing I'm certain of: every time you remove a link, it pisses someone off, they research, and run straight to the RFC to say that you shouldn't do it any more. It's a perverse form of canvassing: it distorts the result, and it distorts it in precisely the way you don't want to distort it.—](]) 05:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | It's counterproductive for you to continue to try to get archive.is links removed right now. There are many that would argue that a temporary recess during the new RFC was a good idea. Even if you don't agree, there's one thing I'm certain of: every time you remove a link, it pisses someone off, they research, and run straight to the RFC to say that you shouldn't do it any more. It's a perverse form of canvassing: it distorts the result, and it distorts it in precisely the way you don't want to distort it.—](]) 05:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Your crude and destructive edit == | |||
| Your recent edit at ] removed a legitimate citation when it should only have stripped the deprecated URL. I realise you want to remove a lot of URLs but you are obliged to do it without damaging valid citations, no matter how inconvenient. I have had to correct your error manually by restoring the citation. I suggest you proceed more slowly and preserve citations when possible. ] (]) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:51, 29 June 2014
Samsamcat account
I'd though I would let you know that I've decided to withdrawn from wikipedia after a challenging writing project with this. Essensially my work with the research has completed. I wish you, weirth, and Resolute well in this program and life in general. Volunteering is occupying much of my time. And my work is not appreciated here noneless. So I'm tendering my resignation.
Extended comment about archive.is links removal on the talk pages
Would you be so kind to write an extended comment about archive.is link removal on the talk pages of the articles? For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dishonored&diff=614744454&oldid=608514587 This would make people happy and they won't complain.
Please stop removing archive.is links from articles
Hi, I see that you are removing archive.is links from alot of articles and therefore I ask you to stop doing so as there is no valid consensus to do so. I am (meanwhile) aware of the RFC, but there is no substance to it. Another RFC is already ongoing and nothing is settled right now. Just because archive.is has been blacklisted as a consequence of the RFC (again without any substance) does not mean that existing links should be removed from articles. By doing so, you are destroying other editors precious contributions and they count much more to this project than a suspicion mostly based on speculation that a particular site might turn bad in the future. If the site would do, we can nuke it in a split-second by commenting out the archiveurl= parameter. Therefore, there is absolute no need for any immediate actions which are doing way more harm than good. Please stop your removals and revert your existing removals until a proper consensus and reaonable solutions could have been derived by the community as a whole to address any potential problems. Replacing archive.is links by links to other archive sites is okay, but only if done at the same time. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually a proper consensus was reached in the previous RfC, you disagree with that, tough luck. It has been established that the operator of archive.is has used an illegal bot net to insert links to their site onto wikipedia. Its not a matter of if the site is malicious, it has already been established as such. Keeping the current links does cause problems when trying to edit articles right now. Ill continue to remove per the established consensus of a valid closed RfC. I will be going back through these articles and adding archive urls where they are available. Right now the primary focus is removing a site that uses misleading and illegal tactics to promote themselves. Werieth (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a note: many of the URLs at Fortress (Alter Bridge album) no longer point to the archived versions of the websites. Please be sure to replace them with working archived URLs, otherwise it will not be able to confirm information about chart positions. Thanks. Have a good day. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Soliciting comment...
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Inadvertent canvassing
It's counterproductive for you to continue to try to get archive.is links removed right now. There are many that would argue that a temporary recess during the new RFC was a good idea. Even if you don't agree, there's one thing I'm certain of: every time you remove a link, it pisses someone off, they research, and run straight to the RFC to say that you shouldn't do it any more. It's a perverse form of canvassing: it distorts the result, and it distorts it in precisely the way you don't want to distort it.—Kww(talk) 05:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Your crude and destructive edit
Your recent edit at Brickens removed a legitimate citation when it should only have stripped the deprecated URL. I realise you want to remove a lot of URLs but you are obliged to do it without damaging valid citations, no matter how inconvenient. I have had to correct your error manually by restoring the citation. I suggest you proceed more slowly and preserve citations when possible. — O'Dea (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
