User talk:67.243.247.14

January 2023
Hello, I'm ARoseWolf. I noticed that you recently removed content from Angela Cappetta without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. A Rose Wolf  17:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing properly sourced content that meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and take this discussion to the article talk page where the community can decide the validity and due weight of such content inclusion. Simply removing it because you don't like it being there is antithetical to the libra mission of Wikipedia and violates Wikipedia policy on editing of articles. I am reverting disruptive editing and blanking of properly sourced content. -- A Rose Wolf  17:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The First and Last Freedom. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Removing an insecure http-only source that could not load anyway is disruptive? Explain. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. If you cant find an alternative, dont remove it. If you arent typing in passwords, social security numbers, drivers licence numbers, you will be fine with http-only. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the policy or guideline that accepts insecure links in citations that verifying readers cannot access anyway? 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unencrypted Http is not insecure for this purpose. It is perfectly fine when not handling sensitive information. I have never, ever seen anyone else removing sources because the link was a http-only one, which suggests that maybe this isnt the "done thing". If it cant be replaced with https leave it alone. Removal of dead links to proper sources is unhelpful and disruptive (even if unintentionally so). I shouldn't need to give you the exact policy or guideline, it's in there, proably somewhere in WP:Link rot. Find archive links instead. If no archive links exist, find a replacement in some other way, or tag it as a permanently dead link. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or just remove it as clutter, since it is not ever coming back. Reasons for my revert are given in Talk:The First and Last Freedom 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And ive reverted you, beacsue you seem to be mistaking "dead link" for "brwoser won't allow page to load because it doesnt like http". Very different. Maybe actually read what I have told you here, and stop removing valid links. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Forever-dead links are not valid. Also, readers can always verify via hard copy since there are no replacement links or free archives available. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be rather similar to in some ways. Just an observation. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you are talking about, but you have not replied re: "disruptive" 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes i have Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Beginning of the second paragraph, "In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. It goes on further to say that we should use the dead link template when encountering links that are permanently dead. Deleting them makes the content unsourced, a no-no on Wikipedia, whereas leaving the dead link allows for editors to see that the content was potentially verifiable at one time. The page goes on to state, "Do not delete a citation just because it has been tagged with for a long time. I think that's a sufficient answer to show that these edits were disruptive. -- A Rose Wolf  14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a convenience link in a short citation (harv). The corresponding full citation includes an https archive of same, but the in-source location is not archived anywhere. Page numbers for verification through hard copy are given. There was no citation "". Only an unfit link. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, please address the issue at its section in Talk:The First and Last Freedom. This seems to be heading to WP:DR anyway, so let's keep it centralized 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)