User talk:Reowmo4

Gamezebo Links

Can you elaborate on what you mean by the links having "ceased to provide ranking value to the website it was pointing to"? Waxworker (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, let me explain. On the website Gamezebo.com, there was an article, and Wikipedia had linked to this article, placing the site alongside their article on the relevant page. This was done to enhance the reputation of that particular article for both users and Google's search engine. However, over time, the website owner carried out a redesign, resulting in most of the links breaking, leading to a 404 error when attempting to open them. Nonetheless, the article on the website remains unchanged. In such a scenario, the reputation of both the article and the website suffers, impeding the site's growth and visibility. My intent is not to add a link to something obscure; I am simply updating the link to point to the same website and the exact same article, unchanged. Reowmo4 (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing links

Please immediately stop replacing links with unreliable sources from other sites. The archive-url parameter is used to repair links that have gone offline if there is no suitable replacement by the original source. It is absolutely inappropriate to replace a link to Blizzard's PR website with one to a WoW gold farming site. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the WowVendor portal is a well-established resource. I often come across it in search engines when I need to read something about the game World of Warcraft. Reowmo4 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines are FULL of unreliable and inappropriate websites that are not usable on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please immediately stop doing this for other links as well. When a site goes offline or takes it's article down, we use archive-url to point to archive.org. We do NOT replace the link to a similar article on the same site, without updating any of the rest of the citation template. I've found multiple places where you're replacing sources with a different later article, with different content, from different dates. Even if they cover similar information this is inappropriate. In one example, you replaced an article for an August 2014 toy release with one about a 2018 toy release. Please stop. Use archive-url only. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, you believe that a broken link is better than a valid one? I frequently make changes on Wikipedia and have never encountered such issues. In my opinion, WowVendor is a reliable source, regardless of its indirect connection to gold selling. What matters most is the quality of the article, not whether it's from a reputable source or hastily written. If you'd like, I can try to find an alternative source. However, I don't see how we can improve Wikipedia since you seem to have a bias against certain websites. Reowmo4 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not whether it's from a reputable source or hastily written You're absolutely wrong. Please read WP:RS immediately. If you continue to make inappropriate citation changes, a block may be in your future. This is not how we change or update citations, or fix broken links. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some websites change their URLs over time. The article can be from the same author and have the exact same content, but I am not allowed to replace it??? Reowmo4 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are 100% certain that the URL has simply changed and it's the exact same content (confirmable by checking archive-url), then it's fine to update the link. It must be the same publication, not some other website re-hosting content. But that's not what you've been doing in many cases. -- ferret (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]