User talk:Hipal/Archive 46

Apologies
Yikes! My apologies, Ronz, for raising so much ire––I'm new here and was unaware of the parameters of the issues you and JzG messaged me about. I have read the guidelines about citations, but I was confused because I noticed that in many articles there are primary source citations and secondary source citations from dubious sources and some statements (opinions, really) with no citations at all ("citation needed"). I'm a proponent of evidence-based medicine and have a graduate degree in science, so I thought (erroneously, evidently) that I could identify good sources for the edits I was making. I stand corrected and will be much more circumspect about making any changes in the future––if I am indeed brave (or foolish) enough to attempt any. Sorry for the grief! Best regards, ErinMOBrien (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. We certainly could use your help. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Batteriser
Hi Ronz,

I am from Battery people. May I know why did you undo my changes? I have given a clear explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battery People (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me about this.
 * I am from Battery people. What does that mean? Is "Battery people" an organization of some kind?
 * I reverted your edit because the explanation you gave was original research on your part, and the content you removed was referenced by reliable sources. Reliably sourced information should not be removed just because an editor disagrees with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

But why are you not giving the full explanation from the "reliable source" or which you consider as "reliable source" mentioning the backlight turned off after 1 hour and we cannot use GPS. They have clearly mentioned in the article. I hope it was well explained now, to either remove the statement or add the required line.Battery People (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Could you please explain your concerns in detail at Talk:Batteriser? --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, In the article, they have clearly mentioned, the test was run with back-light been TURNED OFF, but these lines are been removed purposely. May I know the reason for purposely removing a line and giving a false information? Battery People (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain yourself far more clearly and do so on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

edit query
please could you explain why you deleted the mindfulness meditation metastudy in the depression wiki article? tks JCJC777
 * Because you were spamming the same material to multiple articles regardless of relevance. It looks like promotion of a source rather than finding the best article for the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Denis Prager
Why was the whole section deleted? I am quite confused here, as the edit was removed with one sentence "coatrack" even though the added sections were not a coat rack per wiki page on the subject. Eric the fever (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted. Material was already there on the subject. I removed the expansion that was based upon two poor sources. "Coatrack" because the material is not about Proger directly, but about the prageru website. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And what would count as a reliable source?Eric the fever (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly concerned with reliablity, but rather suitability for an encyclopedia article on Prager. While any sources we use need to be reliable, we need ones that are clearly independent. WP:3PARTY describes the problems and solutions. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Resume Page
When you look at the resume page, there are many references to pages even less credible than http://workbloom.com/resume/resume-formats.aspx and yet you find no issue with them...

Resume writing is often thought of as an art with no strict rules. We deal here with "accepted standards" that evolve over time. For example, it was standard to include an objective statement in the past, but no longer. We're not dealing with "facts" here.

The page on WorkBloom does a good point of summarizing the 3 types of resume formats most often used and accepted by resume writers. Further, there was no reference on the page to a source, so it makes sense to add a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And I'm at a loss as to why you would reinstate a reference to a page that we have to pay to view. How can anybody who did not pay the subscription fee verify the relevance of the page? I.e. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-resumes-have-evolved-since-their-first-creation-in-1482-2011-2?op=1
 * Hi. We usually discuss these things on a given article's talk page, but I'm putting my two cents in here because I just undid your most recent edit at Resumé and then I saw you'd commented here on Ronz's page. While references using freely available web pages are preferred, there is no prohibition on citing pages behind firewalls. If there were, we'd lose thousands of valid citations every day. Regarding the WorkBloom ref, I was unable to confirm that it meets the guideline on reliable sources. In general, it's better to cite no source than to cite a questionable one; if the content needs a citation because it's not obvious, and you can't find one, better to just tag it (or, if it's highly doubtful, remove it). Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that the page is not a credible source when you accept these pages full of ads: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/reverse-chronological-resume-format-focusing-on-w0.html http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/curriculumvitae/f/cvresume.htm I spent time to help edit just to see these rigid comments that make no sense and are totally inconsistent. How do you assess a "credible" source? I assess it by its content, not by how big the site is. Doing what you're doing you imply because it's a big site it's credible.

Further, if you look at the talk page of résumé, you would see this: "More Citations & Facts Needed

This article has too many unreferenced claims that provide very little useful information. Please consider not deleting citations because they happen to point to a retail site. If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information. There is no mention of the percentage of usage of Applicant Tracking Systems it's not even mentioned by name. This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing. This article as it is now, on an important topic to many, is not worthy of being in any encyclopedia, peer reviewed or editor reviewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.76 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs)

It is these kinds of things that alienate people from editing on Wikipedia. People that actually know about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"If retailers are privy to better information than researchers through industry trade you are depriving users of valuable information... This article needs to have industry professionals to add actual information not just broad statements which are more ambiguous than they are revealing." If you were in the field, you would know that WorkBloom is a credible and independent source providing comprehensive tips for job seekers. There is so much to change on the résumé page, but we get stuck with these little technical, empty edits. I may be new to Wikipedia, but not to resume writing, so please, reinstate that footnote or refer this to a higher authority and clean up the rest of the page, if you insist on having "proper" references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

About firewalls, there may be no prohibition, but that's not saying that a citation hiding behind a firewall is a good thing. A citation should be easily verifiable, otherwise, it would be in the hands of a few and not subject to open scrutiny. That's not how you build an open and strong community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Given past the past spamming of WorkBloom, you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone it belongs.
 * You are correct, the references can be improved.
 * Please take the discussion to the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Biodynamic wine
You cut data early today re the number/extent of BD (biodynamic) vineyards on the planet which I had provided. This was data I compiled for the Oxford Companion for Wine. I was not paid for this data. I am not the owner or publisher of that (very large) book. I get no royalty (the editor Jancis Robinson Master of Wine would almost certainly have got paid, as would some of those contributors who did even more work than me). Anyway, I was simply one of several dozen contributor/experts to that book. (I do not think anyone else has such data, given that I have been following/writing about biodynamic wines since 1994 and the biodynamic movement has been more focussed on every other crop than wine, given than many biodynamic folks do not approve of alcohol.) This, I guess, is why Oxford University asked for my help. So the wiki page as it stands has only old data based on bad numbers compiled by someone who appears in some cases to have included names of wineries who said "yes, we're biodynamic" when in fact in some cases they a) had no idea what biodynamics is; and b) were still using chemicals and c) therefore had no legal/moral right to be in the list (given that biodynamics is trademarked). It's like me saying I am an airline pilot when I have no qualification. I contacted the guy who did that list way back and (politely) pointed out that Chateau XY or Z was in fact still using chemicals but he was not into dialogue. If he is such a good/independent source for data why don't you get his updated 2016 list (tip: there is no 2016 list)?

Finally when I first read this Wiki entry I was amazed to see TWO citations from Fortune magazine..... Over to you.MontyWaldin (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding.
 * The article could use a great deal of work, and your expertise on the subject would be of great help.
 * You may not have noticed, but I had already indicated that more of your edits to the article should be rolled back in. I agree with you: inaccurate and outdated information should be addressed. However, if we have competing sources, it would best bring it up on the article talk page. Outdated information might be retained if significant at that time or historically, by including the date (eg: "In 2001, ...).
 * Wikipedia has a separate article on Biodynamic agriculture, so Biodynamic wine should be specific to wine and related topics. There's probably too much duplication in the wine article.
 * My impression of the subject matter is that biodynamic wine production was, and perhaps still is, strongly marketed to wine producers and consumers as an alternative to organic. That marketing appears to have impacted the article in a number of ways, causing some of the problems that you've pointed out.
 * I haven't looked at the article references as a whole, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are relying far too much on popular press (as well as in-world sources).
 * Finally, the topic of biodynamic agriculture falls under WP:FRINGE and the general sanctions of WP:ARBPS. Among other things, this places a great deal more scrutiny on in-world sources.
 * My apologies for not having the time (yet) to fold back in all the changes you made that fixed obvious inaccuracies. Can we continue this on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wellness tourism" - Please, advise
Dear Ronz,

Thank you for your correction, I am sorry for not realizing that the copy I've written for the "Wellness tourism" page sounded promotional. In fact, I think that all the countries should add more details about their experience in this domain, however, personally, I've only known the French ones. I know that it is important to avoid commercial names and links, so I only mentioned cities. Could you please advice on which corrections I should make and if it is possible in general?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Amy334455 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Amy334455
 * Thanks for contacting me. Responding on your talk since another editor has noticed. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-japanese sentiment edit change
Hi Ronz, not sure why you reverted my edit. There is nothing in the citation that would even suggest that many Filipinos hate the Japanese. In fact the word is never used and the negative tirade against the Japanese put forth by the Filipinos in question are specific to a group of leftists not the Filipino population in general. And even if we were to focus on the said japanese hatred espoused by the Filipinos in which the article was referring to, whatever anti-japanese sentiment was expressed was specific to the u.s-japanese military alliance policy that could potentially affect Filipino lives. The resentment towards the Japanese within the article had nothing to do with hatred towards the Japanese government as a whole, the japanese people or its culture but rather past military actions by the japanese dating to World War II, which frankly is quite understandable. And my statement that most Filipinos have a positive view towards Japan is true as supported by the BBC polling results in contrast to what chinese and korean responders had to say. So please i would like you not to revert my original edit. Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because it was not supported by the sources, OR - needs rewrite - better sources would help. See WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I will take you up on that. But on the same token i dont believe the burden should be left entirely up to me. I would also like you to quote from the sources that supports your position then we can compare. If push comes to shove and there cannot be an agreement maybe there should just be a deletion of either our positions on the matter Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit on Humaima Malick's page
Hi there! thanks for letting me know that you removed it, can I upload her tweet as reference for her birthday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyayesha (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source for such information in this case. See the discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Humaima_Malick. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Leadership
HI Ronz I noticed that you deleted a journal ref on leadership that I added. The reference added was one of the journal articles on leadership written by a Canadian General Brett Cairns whose works have been cited and referenced a number of times at a national level in Canada. If you google Canadian Aerospace Doctrine Brett Cairns or Canadian Aerospace Leadership Brett Cairns you will see some of his leadership works cited by his nation's Air Force, his nations Aerospace Doctrine Center, and Canadian academics. Others have been archived. An 8 page article on practical leadership written by a military General is something that should be cited in an encyclopedia to complement the ones already there and written from a purely theoretical perspective. The link was to his original work so that people could read what he wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFHistoryBuff (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that the link was just WP:REFSPAM, intended to promote Cairns.
 * Given the extent of information on the topic of leadership written, I don't see why Cairns' perspective deserves any presentation whatsoever. We cannot possibly identify every document written by every general that has ever written about leadership. I'd guess that even all those written by generals who have theoretical and practical experience would be overwhelming. Perhaps we could use all secondary, scholarly analyses of the perspectives of the most notable of such generals? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz I see where you are coming from although few Canadian Generals are cited and referenced for their written work nor is their work included in doctrine manuals. This one happened to be. Not worth arguing over but he does make some very interesting points on leadership which are not routine — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFHistoryBuff (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz as someone new to wikipedia I am trying to better understand the threshold for adding references, journals and additions to current articles. I read some additional guidance from wiki but am still confused. Let's take the suggested addition of a journal for this article as an example (leaving the link to the journal article out as a separate issue). Consider the list of Journals on the Leadership page. When I click on House Robert it takes me to a blank wiki page. The first House article cited is a discussion of a theory that the author states shows promise and should be furthers tested. The second House article is a review of a theory from that one persons perspective. When I click on Vroom Victor it takes me to a page with very little content on a business school professor. The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. Lets now go back to the overall page on leadership. The first sentence states that leadership is both a research area and practical skill yet the article seems to be mostly a compendium of theories. Wikipedia describes an encyclopedia as a compendium holding all branches of knowledge and in the knowledge article states that knowledge can either be theoretical or practical. The leadership article seems to miss the practical part. What am I missing? AFHistoryBuff (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the Leadership article. Given the topic and categories it falls under, I'd assume there are numerous, experienced editors that work on it. Your questions would be better answered on the article's talk page. You might want to look over Tutorial for general information about editing.
 * Robert J House is what we call a redlink. There's no article for it, and if you click on the red link it will start article creation with that name as the subject.
 * Victor Vroom is a very skeletal article.
 * The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. I'm not clear what you are referring to. Something in Victor Vroom?
 * If I were thinking of starting to work on the Leadership article, I'd review the discussions on the article's talk page and the two archived talk pages.
 * As someone unfamiliar with the article, I'm not in a position to know why it is in its current state, nor what content is well-supported. There's no article quality assessment, so I'd assume the article needs a great deal of work. Asking for a quality review might be a good step if one hasn't been done in a long time, if at all. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Brett Cairns
Hi Ronz a brief follow up on the changes you made to the external links for this individual. After I saw your changes I re-read the guidelines. Clearly the social links should not have been there and thanks for removing them per the policy. Concerning the official links, this retired general runs two businesses - real estate and luxury homes. They are different businesses and wikipedia agrees. Please see luxury real estate. As you are aware Wiki: EL Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site. I then re-read Wiki:ELMINOFFICIAL and found 1. "if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website". Therefore I concluded that there should be a link to the main page and not the about us page as per your amendment; and 2. The guidance also states, "In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information". In this situation he has two businesses and a website for each one so two official sites - A real estate site and a luxury homes site. AFHistoryBuff (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time you are taking to review the guidelines.
 * WP:ELOFFICIAL begins:
 * An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
 * The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
 * The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
 * Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.
 * The problem with his business websites is that neither fits criteria #2, that the content covers the area of notability. Rather than not include any official website because of this, I've linked to the small amount about Cairns, so at least we are covering what he says about himself as much as we can.
 * I'd already started a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Brett Cairns. We should continue this discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Handling spam
This is a serious question unrelated to our recent discussions. What would you recommend for things like Special:Contributions/JasonDD? I'm inclined to hit rollback but that's not an option—we have to spend ten minutes investigating each case, then another couple of minutes offering a reasoned "undo" edit summary. And who has time to engage with the user? Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you wouldn't use rollback except to make it clear what's going on. Usually I'll undo with a comment explaining what's going on (REFSPAM in this case), leave a notice on the editor's talk page, then rollback the remaining spam. It looks like that is what has been done. I will also add at a representative portion of the articles involved to my watch list, choosing ones that don't appear to be regularly reviewed by experienced editors. I certainly don't watch each spammer's talk page - my watch list is too large as it is.
 * You're right. There's some minimal investigation and communication that should be done, and it can be time-consuming for even the simplest cases.
 * I've wondered how much of it could be automated safely... Seems like it would be ok to have a helper bot that scans a half-dozen or so edits from an identified editor, looking for spammed links. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's not easy. My point about rollback was merely that clicking "rollback" should be reserved for vandalism as defined at WP:VAND (and some other stuff that doesn't really apply in this case), although I sometimes rollback blatant spam, and I think several of this user's edits got the same treatment. User:XLinkBot does a lot of good work, but something to detect cases like the one here would be nice. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe VAND and WP:ROLL need a bit more clarifying? Rollback#5 is what I've described. Don't you agree?
 * Much spam is outright vandalism. In the case of JasonDD, I wouldn't call it that, yet. If he continued without changes to his behavior, I'd give him multiple notices, spread out over days, before requesting he be blocked. I'd then take it to AIV. I realize that many editors, including some admins, would be quicker to proceed to blocking him. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, #5 that you linked is what I rely on when I use rollback in some cases. However, doing a proper explanation is not easy. Saying "I reverted your spam" is not possible because there is always the possibility (WP:AGF) that the person really is a new editor who thinks adding external links is very helpful. Explaining why their links do not satisfy WP:EL can also take quite a bit of time. I don't think there is a good solution. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's difficult to avoid AGF problem in edit summaries: Simply focus on describing the edit(s), while avoiding wording that could be interpreted as being about the editor. For the editor's talk page, the advert- and spam- templates get the basics across without much effort.
 * Once an editor responds, then details are necessary and AGF misunderstandings easier to fall into.
 * Explaining why their links do not satisfy WP:EL can also take quite a bit of time. That, combined with the huge amount of spam we get, plus the need to direct editors to focusing on improving Wikipedia rather than linking to other websites, is why EL puts the burden getting consensus to add new external links on those seeking to include them. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Need Help
ok, thank you for your kind reply, Please guide me that what kind of links i can add that are not bad for my website, you are really expert in these things please guide me as a teacher, so I can work in the same way you tell me. I just want to ask that for example it is a page on Wikipedia ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahira_Khan") and if i want to add a link of biography of my website ( http://www.pakistanigirlspictures.net/mahira-khan-pakistani-top-model-actress/ ), how can i add this kind of links please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehana Darani (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think you have good reasons why the link should be added, you should explain them on the article's talk page: Talk:Mahira_Khan. Because that website is a fan site, I don't expect it would be allowed. While I haven't looked in detail, it appears that the site is violating copyrights as well.
 * I've left you a detailed welcome message on your talk page that includes multiple resources on how to get started as a new editor. I hope you'll look them over. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk
Hey Ronz - I'm confused as to what elements I added would be considered marketing or promotional? All points we're properly cited with exact instances this person stated these events in his life, as well as referrencing other wiki pages or New York Times article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Gary Vaynerchuk - Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced
Hello Ronz - I'm unsure on what you're reffering to as unreferenced or poorly referenced? All all citations are links directing to the exact talks in which this points were discussed? Can you please provide an direct example of a poorly referenced point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisundefeated (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read my previous comments about these problems on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia pol
Hey Ronz - can you be clear about what about these changes are soapbox or promotional? These are better sited than most on the information on this person's wiki and provide a better structured page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krainak (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Coconut
Hello Ronz. You said: "Why did you remove these citations from Coconut? As I understand it, they should remain unless they are clearly not reliable or do not verify the material." If you check the original URLs or substituted wayback URLs, the information is not available. I did a preliminary Google search for the content and found no trace of either source. I did leave a citation request for each, so if you have more successful searching, you could put the correct URLs and sources back. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't think they should have been removed, as you are not contesting their reliability nor verification. I'll put them back. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that. From the typical user's experience, the existing references are a dead end. If we can't go to the source for the information sought, then a citation request serves to alert a motivated editor to find alternate sources. But I'll leave this to your decision. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADREF is the guideline. Basically, we should not remove reliable sources that verify material just because there is no longer an online (or conveniently accessible) version. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did all that and hope you will prove me wrong. But I ended up at #5, which is where I concluded with citation requests, i.e., where we are now: "Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources: If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation. If it is material that is specifically required by policy to have an inline citation, then please consider tagging it with ." --Zefr (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These are absolutely not web-only sources. I really dislike the wording of the guideline, as it causes exactly this confusion.
 * The first is a local newspaper, so no reason to remove that just because the link is dead. The second is actually two references, so absolutely no reason to remove both of them.
 * Finally, I'm getting some very strange results trying to look up archives for both. Archive.org appears to be changing something related to these specific archives. I'm currently finding the second reference at https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20121011011735/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Petenes_mangroves?topic=49597, but I've no idea if it will remain there. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/62343/news/regions/report-26-provinces-quarantined-for-coconut-pest looks like either a different version of the first source or an independent article based upon the exact same information. There are also many sources available documenting the quarantine. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why most sources like this should be kept. Even if the exact article cannot be found, someone else may be able to find it or find other material verifying the information by using the old references for searching. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bent Flyvbjerg socking continued

 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist


 * The sock report is here, and the resulting spam report is here


 * Another spam report?




 * Links to what few content-related discussions there are


 * Other socks


 * List of articles


 * Find some experts to evaluate due weight