Talk:Vilalba

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vilalba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090422032155/http://chaira.wikispaces.com:80/ to http://chaira.wikispaces.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Undoing improvements rather than collaborating

relocated from User talk:JHunterJ

I'm sorry but this is silly. A deficient presentation in an article is in no way solved by sticking a footnote with your own ruminations on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. This has no place in mainspace, footnote or not. There are two ways to avoid the underlying problem – either by linking all the table entries, or by abstaining from insisting that one, and only one, of them should be linked. – Uanfala (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You're approach here is silly. I agree that the explanatory note is not needed; I only placed it there because of your silly suggestion that the presence of one link implied the impossibilities of others. Make whatever improvements to the article you want, but stop undoing my improvement just because you see other possibly improvements I didn't make at the same time. You have absolutely no leg to stand on with that claim. If you feel there's a problem with missing links, then fix it by further improving the encyclopedia, not by reverting WP:GNOME incremental improvements. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)