Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Delusion23 (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 29 June 2014 (→Please stop removing archive.is links from articles: Fortress links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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I'd though I would let you know that I've decided to withdrawn from wikipedia after a challenging writing project with this.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.

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. At least one other editor has attempted to talk to you about this removal. You think you are being a help by removing the blacklist links, I get that. But if you do not replace them, that poses serious WP:LINKROT concerns. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Its better to have a link rot than to promote spam, and violate consensus for their removal. Werieth (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I assume that the OP here is talking about removal of archive.is links; if not, please provide a link to a sample edit that is being described above (in any case, that's a helpful thing to do in a message like the one above). There is consensus for removal of archive.is links. Apologies if I am misunderstanding the context here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: you are correct, its just Favre1fan93 throwing a fit because they ended up on the loosing side of the RfC, and Im finally doing something about the removal process. Werieth (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "throwing a fit" because I'm on the losing side. I'm "throwing a fit" because you are not rearchiving the links. I followed the RFC with removal on a good majority of the pages I watch and rearchived them with Webcite. So because you are not doing this, that is the issue I am taking to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Im not done with the process yet. First part is mass removal, then converting the current edit filter to blacklisting, and then Im going to be going through a large list of pages and adding archive URLs (which the previous archive.is pages are a subset). Werieth (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you have never made that clear, so I hope you see my issue in your editing when you just mass remove archive links because of the RfC, without giving the intention that you are going back to fix them. (And as I recall, even your fixed archives had issues when this was an issue previously). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You never asked. I dont post everything that I have plans for, just what Im currently doing. When there is a specific request, and the user isnt being difficult about I, Ill go ahead and skip to the final part for them. However your behavior has made it clear that you have OWN issues, and dont care about consensus. Given your behavior I dont see the benefits to go out of my way to help you. Werieth (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Favre don't bother with Werieth, he's very quick to throw out the indirect threats of "not helping unless you beg me to" even if he's helping you by undoing the mess he made. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Im not asking for begging at all, just polite, civil discussion towards progress. I guess it depends on your perspective. Removing archive.is is cleaning up one mess, while still leaving other problems. But we dont require users to fix every issue with an article when they make 1 edit. Werieth (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not 1 edit when you're doing it to 1000 articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it was something I would have to ask a user. I guess I just hoped that anyone that came across these links, especially many on GA or FA content, would be considerate enough to realize that the urls would need new archive links. And I don't have OWN issues. If you are removing a lot of content that was done to initially further the preservation of the page (and yes the RfC changed that), I view that as disruptive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Werieth might take note of some boxed remarks at Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC: "To those removing Archive.is from articles, please be sure to make very clear A) why the community made this decision and B) what alternatives are available to them to deal with rotlink." and "that the removal of Archive.is links be done with care and clear explanation to editors". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. That is the issue users are having with you Werieth. You are failing to rectify the problem fully. You are only going halfway. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind?

Please leave my external links alone. I read the Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC and I appreciate you diligence, but you are depriving my readers of an opportunity to read the academic source which explains and supports my article. Besides, the URL parameter has a required status inside Template:Cite web so leave it there next time please. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 04:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is links are forbidden, which is why I removed it. For some reason I read that as a cite book template not a cite web template or I would have removed the entire reference. Werieth (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I was also less than impressed with how you handled the Bill Gibb archive.is incident. I reinstated the reference with a link to the actual webpage, overwriting the offending URL, but just ganking out the whole cite seemed clumsy and counterproductive. Could you not just have removed the offending URL and left the rest of the cite, with dates, publication details, etc, intact? Mabalu (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Where I think its possible I do leave the rest of the cite intact. In this case thought that the URL was required for the template. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nup, it's a Cite News template - wouldn't have affected anything with the URL removed. Mabalu (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, in the future Ill just remove the URL in those cases. Werieth (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this but it seems to me there are some issues with the citation.

1) Why is the citeweb used? It seems to be a journal or similar so citeweb seems to be the wrong template.

2) Why was only an archive link provided in the first place, the original page still seems to work which would suggest both should be provided.

3) Are we even sure the the blogspot copy is okay? It could easily be a copyvio. The blogspot copy mentions this page which suggests it could have been from the author's personal archive (which they are often allowed to have by journals) , but I'm not totally sure if the blog itself is run by the author. And if it isn't I'm not sure the blog hoster can host a copy just because it was taken from the author's personal archive, particularly since the robots.txt would seem to disallow it (of course the blog hoster wouldn't need to follow the robots.txt if they are doing it manually, but it implies the author may not be allowing archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Puzzled

Your clean-up of Astronomy's archives puzzled me. Doesn't it risk confusing bots to leave an archiveurl= entry the same as the main url and archivedate set? I'm imagining someone trying to survey which urls have archives and thinking that those ones have. NebY (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Werieth (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! NebY (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm having an issue with your Archive.is handling

I get what you're doing, I really do. You're in the right in regards to removing these archive pages, as they are blacklisted and have been for awhile. Regardless of my opinion on that, to me it is simply a fact that you're in the right when you remove the archive.is links.

That said, I really think you should start replacing the archives with different ones. If you're going to remove the archiving and (probably) break the reference, you should replace the archive with something from WebCitation or Wayback Machine so that the reference is still accessible. Maybe this seems like too much, or like it isn't your responsibility, and I could understand that too (I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it). But it needs to be done, and it doesn't make sense to just leave what are most likely broken links sitting in both GAs and FAs. I know you're wanting to help, and you are in one way. But you're also harming in another. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: As I have stated before, filling in valid archive urls is planned. However getting rid of the crap needs to happen first, otherwise it just makes it harder to fill in valid archive data. Werieth (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that stated by you, so I apologize for the assumption. But wouldn't it be easier to leave the parameters and just archive it then? I feel like you're making more work by not doing both at once. It's one edit instead of two, no time gap, etc. I could be wrong, I'm not trying to tell you how to edit; I'm just telling you how I would. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is some discussion about this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Archive.is Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am in the list of the confused as well. You took out an archive.is link in the the article about Bridgnorth, leaving another url in that ref. The archive.is points to exactly the information needed, while the link remaining points to an article in French providing total population on Earth, and not specifically in Bridgnorth. You removed the pertinent url and kept the useless url. I have no knowledge of this Misplaced Pages argument with archive.is other than that one exists, but your action seems backwards. It cannot be reverted, now you took this step. I think you should find another source with the current (non census year) estimate of the population if you do not like the reference cited, instead of leaving a bit of nonsense. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I didnt "leave another link in its place" I returned to the original cited url. Werieth (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine points. You left the article with a useless citation, removing the useful one. I do not see the gain in that. Which url was first is not germane, unless that is what leaves you with a clean conscience, and the rest of us with no citation. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Its a matter of policy. I took a look and there are no valid archives for that particular URL, I would suggest you find a reliable source and use that. archive.is was forbidden for a reason. Werieth (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove references to reliable sources

Just because an article has been archived on an unapproved site is not a reason to remove references to reliable sources. Just remove the link to the archive, not the citation. I strongly object to what you did at Bourbon whiskey. That is not justified. Misplaced Pages is allowed to contain references to WP:OFFLINE sources. There is no need to have a link to a copy of everything. You seem to be causing articles that are properly sourced to become unsourced. That is damaging to Misplaced Pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That appeared to be an online reference, and thus removal of the complete citation was justified. Werieth (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Converting a linked reference to an unlinked reference is not fundamentally damaging like removing reference citations altogether is. Please stop and revert all such actions. As you know, this is being discussed at the Administrator's noticeboard. Please at least stop until there has been an opportunity for this to get discussed and for some guidance to be provided. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Depending on the case, in this one the unlinked citation was useless and unverifiable because it fails to provide enough information. See what masem stated on AN. Werieth (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Your edit was seriously damaging. Please see additional remarks by others at AN. A citation to an article by the Smithsonian Institute, with a title, author, and publication date, is a fully adequate citation – even without a link. Please see WP:OFFLINE. Citations are not required to be linked. Your WP:Edit summary was also badly misleading, since it removed legitimate reliable sourcing when it appeared to only remove an archive link. Did you make other edits like that, converting sourced information to unsourced information? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of John Brown image from my rewrite sandbox

The policy you cite (NFCC#9) makes no mention of user sandboxes when a rewrite is in progress. Neither does this essay further clarifying the issue mention such cases as prohibited. It is nearly impossible to figure out how text will wrap around a given image during a rewrite, without actually including that image on the sandbox page where the rewrite is occurring. As such, I am requesting that, as a compromise, we agree that by Sunday at 11:59 PM, I will have finished the rewrite to such an extent that I will remove both the JB image as well as the entire workspace from my userspace. Is that agreeable to you? Lithistman (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:NFCC#9 very clearly states that images only are allowed in articles. An article is a page in the article namespace. A user sandbox is not a page in the article namespace. A user sandbox is therefore not an article. Since a user sandbox isn't an article, WP:NFCC#9 therefore forbids non-free files in user sandboxes. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted here for a reply from Werieth, not you. And given your rudeness on my talkpage, I particularly do not wish to hear your opinion on interpretation of image policy as pertains to sandbox rewriting of articles. Lithistman (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: its not his interpretation of policy. It is policy. Usage of non-free media in your userspace has a zero tolerance. If you need to work out spacing issues use File:Example.jpg or any other free image. Werieth (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please point out where anything resembling what I'm trying to do in my rewriting sandbox is addressed in NFCC#9, or anywhere else in image policy. I have not found it, and I have looked--wasting valuable time I could have actually, you know, been editing the encyclopedia, which is (at least I think) the point of this project. Lithistman (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: NFCC#9 states that non-free images can only be used in articles. An article is defined as being in namespace 0 (article space, See Misplaced Pages:What_is_an_article?#Namespace) and not Disambiguation pages, templates, navboxes, user pages, discussion pages, file pages, category pages, help pages and Misplaced Pages policy pages. Given those factors your current draft is both a userpage, and not in the article namespace. Werieth (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So, in other words, you can't find where it mentions this type of case (or anything similar) either. Got it. Lithistman (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: counter point, can you point to anything that specifically allows it? (I doubt it.) Werieth (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You take the antagonistic, totalitarian "if it's not specifically allowed, it must be impermissible." I take a much more pragmatic approach wherein if a usage is NEVER ONCE MENTIONED in the NFCC, it is permissible. Lithistman (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: It is specifically forbidden, and that isnt not the position I take. NFCC states that Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace. Your user space is neither a article nor in the article namespace. Care to argue how that use is acceptable when policy provides crystal clear prohibition? Werieth (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a disagreement about whether to interpret image policy constrictively or loosely. That's at the heart of the matter. Lithistman (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, its a matter of either following policy or ignoring it. NFCC#9 is very explicit in regards to usage. Because you disagree with policy you want to interpret it "loosely" so you can just ignore it. Werieth (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

People who interpret policy constrictively always believe that those who interpret it loosely are "just ignor it", thus precluding anyone from possibly disagreeing in good faith with their position. Your reply was exactly what I expected it to be. Cheers, Lithistman (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The reverse argument is that those who disagree with your position are interpreting policy too constrictive, and failing to AGF. While the truth is that you have zero policy based arguments other than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IWANTIT. If this was an issue that was debatable that would be one issue, however this issue is a bright line, you crossed. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're acting very much in good faith. I believe people can disagree about policy interpretation and not be "just ignor it." I also believe that it's possible--likely, even--that your more constrictive interpretation of image policy will, in fact, win the day as far as what happens from a practical perspective. In this case, it is mainly due to the fact that I wish to do other things besides debating whether image policy should be interpreted proscriptively or, alternatively, whether a more moderate approach should be taken. Lithistman (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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)