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.
ARoseWolf17:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
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. --
ARoseWolf17:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 dead link for a long time. I think that's a sufficient answer to show that these edits were disruptive. --
ARoseWolf14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
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 "deleted". Only an unfit link.
67.243.247.14 (
talk)
14:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address.