User talk:MovingTree

Incorrect wikilink removal

When removing dead wikilinks, please keep the description of the article, even if the link is removed.

So, in International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service you would change "[[International Polar Motion Service]] (IPMS)" to "International Polar Motion Service (IPMS)" because International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service is the remaining article to the IPMS, and you wouldn't want to link an article to itself.

If there were a new article that would be a suitable link, you would use it. For example, if some other article had a link to the IPRS, you would replace "[[International Polar Motion Service]] (IPMS)" to "[[International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service|International Polar Motion Service]] (IPMS)" because the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service has taken over the functions of the IPMS.

I have taken care of International Polar Motion Service. Please review your other edits to insure you have not removed information from articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect instructions

Jc3s5h,

Thank you for the correct portion of your comment, and for correcting the link.

Removing a dead link and inserting a new one are two entirely separate steps. Simply by removing a dead link, you have already improved the page. Once having done that, an editor is under no obligation to take any further steps. If that editor or another editor wishes to add back in an updated link, he is welcome to do so. Please review your other talk page comments and make sure you have not propagated this instructional error elsewhere. MovingTree

You damaged International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service when you removed the information that IPMS stands for International Polar Motion Service.

Why repeat this?

Furthermore, dead links are allowed because they serve as a suggestion that an article on that topic should be written. Of course, some dead links are just mistakes and should be removed, but it should not be removed if an article on the topic could be useful.

Errors (such as dead links) should always be removed. There must be an intelligent way of indicating that an article on a topic could be useful?

Please assure me you will use more care in the future in removing dead links, and that you will repair any damage you have done in your previous removals. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please assure me that you will cease to give incorrect instructions, and that you will go through your posts and correct them. MovingTree

October 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Fascism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed erroneous information. I did add any information. The comment you left on my page was blatantly false and irrelevant. Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia pages, as you did to mine. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MovingTree (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC) MovingTree (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This involves you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing_edit_warrior_making_bogus_claims_of_vandalism

Dronebogus (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

MovingTree, you seem to believe, or at least to argue, that you can remove anything you don't like from the lead section at LifeSiteNews on the argument that it lacks citations. Citations are not actually required in the lead section, which summarizes the article, and its content is supposed to be (and is) referenced further down. You have been blocked for three months from LifeSiteNews for persistent tendentious editing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: by the way, looking at the way you respond to good information (such as "dead links are allowed") above, and to reasonable warnings such as this, I'm surprised you haven't been siteblocked yet. If you continue being so aggressive, it will probably happen soon. Bishonen | tålk 08:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]