User talk:LiamMcS

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, LiamMcS. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Chamith  (talk)  14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for fixing that mistake I made by using an automated tool on a computer related article.

Chamith  (talk)  15:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 

Your submission at Articles for creation: ICE (FPGA) has been accepted
 ICE (FPGA), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bradv 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=ICE_(FPGA) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Reference errors on 27 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Scottish Funding Council page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=722403502 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F722403502%7CScottish Funding Council%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edinburgh College
I took a look at the Edinburgh College article today and had been trying to clean it up- the use of archive links on this page seems quite excessive. Given that these pages are archived on external sites it is possible for editors to easily add links to archived versions if these links cease to work and indeed bots perform some of this work. I see that you have restored all of these archive urls, citing a "how to" guide which describes that is possible to pre-emptively include archive links. Do you have concerns that these webpages will all become unavailable? Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of the pages are not pages that are likely to always be kept in the same state. There's little or no downside to archiving them and including archive links and, in the event they do change or become unavailable, no effort has to be expended to find the correct archive link. LiamMcS (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not quite the case. For example, you reinstated an archive link to a BBC News website page. The vast majority of news pages published by the BBC on their website have retained their format over time- even pages from almost two decades ago. Some websites do get updated and this can be helpful, unless you are concerned that updated information will lose some specific details that you were relying upon. There are several downsides to including a large number of archive links for each reference- for average people viewing the page it has the potential to confuse or distract and it can give the impression a link is dead. As I explained above, I don't think that you are saving effort by adding such a mass of archive links. I don't think trying to have an archived url for every source helps readers of an article such as this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Archived links marked dead or live as appropriate. Several were dead. LiamMcS (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)