User talk:Redlinkseeker

Red links
You seem to have taken it upon yourself to remove redlinks. Please do not do this - it is not mandated in Wikipedia policy and is a thoroughly bad idea. Articles linking to these redlinks may be (and very frequently are) created in the future. If the link has been removed this reduces Wikipedia's functionality. -- Necrothesp 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily blocked this account; please respond on this talk page. Why are you making these edits?  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see the problem, the above user says it is not authorised but that does not mean to say that it is not allowed just because wikipedia does not say it IS allowed. Why are you bothered? If something is not popular enough to have an article on itself then it should not have a red link or a (?) just to say the obvious and the (?) just makes articles harder to read, this is a personal trait as I hate to see lazy user making articles with red links so other people will make pages, if someone wants a page on someone to be made then they would search and therefore make the page without being prompted by a red link or (?). Redlinkseeker 18:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is not a position supported by policy. Removing redlinks is considered acceptable when: a) There has been an AFD that reached a conclusion that the target will never be encyclopedic (note that this does not include non-notability at the time of the discussion), b) The link is not related or helpful to the context of the article.  Because you think that anyone linking to an as-of-yet unwritten article is "lazy" is mysteriously missing as a reason to delete redlinks.  Additionally, the (?) has to be enabled manually in the user preferences, so saying that it "makes articles harder to read" isn't relevant.  Redlinks serve an important role in Wikipedia, for the reasons given above and at WP:RED.  I have no problem with removing redlinks in accordance with policy, such as removing links to years by themselves (i.e., just 2007, not the 2007 in October 15 2007 because that is required for date formatting), or removing links to targets that are not encyclopedic.  I reviewed your edits before blocking and many of them could certainly have become future articles, and linking to them is helpful, both to encourage their creation, and for navigation when they are eventually created.  If you can demonstrate that you will only remove redlinks in accordance with policy, then I (or any other administrator) would have no problem unblocking you.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I disagree but nontheless I will give it up as it appears to be angering wikipedians. This account is rendered useless, I request for it to be deleted. Please unblock my IP address. Redlinkseeker 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot delete accounts, and I intentionally did not block your IP address or block account creation. You should be able to edit and create another account; if you for some reason aren't able, let me know.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I see that you created a second account and it got blocked with the autoblock on. I went ahead and undid that autoblock because you didn't make any further redlink-related edits and I don't think it was in bad faith.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While at the same time, your signature is a red link. Oh, the irony.--Atlan (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the irony and I must say it is intended, I am a funny guy. What is taking you bbatsell, you have asked me to reply on this talk page so therefore you must want an explanation. Please hurry.Redlinkseeker 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just don't do it. It doesn't improve Wikipedia, and it angers people more than you probably intend. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK so is this account blocked eternally? And I am free to create an account which coincides with wikipedia policy? Redlinkseeker 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's blocked "indefinitely", which just means "without a definite end". I outlined the conditions under which I was willing to unblock above.  You are free to create a new account, and I certainly encourage you to edit the encyclopedia :) — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The End
There was once a time of the eternal redlinkseekers, now they dwindle, forced out by heartless rulers of the state, farewell redlinkseekers, the times have changed. Redlinkseeker 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)