User talk:Tchksuzuki

June 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, your edit to Andy Kubert did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted. Specifically, the link you removed was not a "spam link," but merely the link to a supportive webpage that had gone dead since it was originally added to the article. Although this sometimes happens to links, wholesale removal is not necessarily the proper solution, as explained by WP:LINKROT, and when the citation is in template form with an archived version of the original link, we tend to keep the original, even after it has gone dead. Templates even include parameters that indicate whether the original link is live or dead. Removing it from such a template can result in a citation error, as you can see here.

Btw, please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, make sure you use the Preview function before saving changes you're not sure about, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Michael Francis Burbidge, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Elizium23 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal sites

Hey Tchksuzuki, I don't think what you are doing is healthy for Wikipedia. The few of your edits that I checked do not go to "illegal sites", they are sites which have been usurped by a new owner. Removing the site takes away the possibility of working out a link to the original site through an archive. We want those to stay. Let me know if I can help explain better. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tchksuzuki, SchreiberBike has explained the situation with links to expired (and subsequently usurped) domains very well. For situations like this, we retain the link for context but use an archive of the site (when it was useful) to sustain the reference. You've ignored SchreiberBike's advice, and removed dozens more links. You're doing so very quickly - so quickly it's not clear that you're paying any attention to the article or links, and you've made no attempt to engage with anyone in any discussion. The changes you have made have been disruptive, and you've been reverted by a number of users. You must STOP, and instead you need to discuss what changes you think should be done. Right now you're doing nothing but generating work for others to clean up. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I'm showing how to address the issue properly. For one link, I found an archive'd version in the Wayback Machine, and fixed the reference to use that. That way the article's content still has a checkable reference. For the other, the Wayback Machine hadn't archived it - so the link is dead. I've marked the link as dead, which alerts readers that the relevant content isn't supported by a currently checkable reference, and alerts other editors that the might like to find a reference which does support the relevant content. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An lo, by tagging that 2nd link as "dead link", that's trigged the archive robot to find a working archive of the link, which it did in this edit. This is how we properly address the issue of dead links and usurped domains - not mass removal of links. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Toolforge and queued an IABot job to fix the articles I've reverted. It may take some time, but it should clean up the mess that this editor is concerned about. Elizium23 (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay McWalter: Elizium23 and I have reverted almost 300 edits between the two of us now, and Tchksuzuki shows no signs of stopping or of listening to you, with another of these since your and Elizium's last messages. Would you consider blocking Tchksuzuki so as to get them to come talk things out? (Elizium's AIV request was removed as stale.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to avoid blocking anyone, particularly for removing what we all agree are bad websites. Tchksuzuki just needs to do things properly, and to communicate with other editors. In any event, if a block becomes necessary, it would be better if another admin did it. But Tchksuzuki - yes, if you persist, you are likely to be blocked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay McWalter, are you an admin? I can't tell from your userpage.

There is ample evidence that this editor never, apart from redundant edit summaries, communicated with us. He never used a talk page. We warned him as much as humanly possible, we're done with warnings.

I am equally concerned about the breathtaking speed at which this editor was proceeding. He was making 3-4 edits per minute - once every 15-20 seconds. With the same edit summary on each one, I am led to believe that this was assisted by bot software. Elizium23 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same concern, especially given that the only technical errors I could see across several hundred edits were times where they missed <ref> tags while deleting the contents of a ref. A repeated technical error like that is an indication of a glitchy script. Not necessarily, but to the extent that it would be good to get a clear answer on what's happening here. But I do understand if Finlay McWalter feels he may be INVOLVED here. If Tchksuzuki returns to this kind of editing, one of the three of us might want to post to WP:ANI, since this might be slightly above the paygrade of AIV. (P.S. Popups lets you see someone's user rights when you hover over their name.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. freshacconci (✉) 04:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]