Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
::You want me to keep going? This time tomorrow were back to 2015, and i will not be arsed to save any of that shite, cheers [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
::You want me to keep going? This time tomorrow were back to 2015, and i will not be arsed to save any of that shite, cheers [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::You may think these incremental removals are tedious, but it makes a huge difference, because it allows other editors to see what you are thinking. Now editors can browse through your changes and see for themselves if they agree. Thanks! [[User:Uglemat|Uglemat]] ([[User talk:Uglemat|talk]]) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
:::You may think these incremental removals are tedious, but it makes a huge difference, because it allows other editors to see what you are thinking. Now editors can browse through your changes and see for themselves if they agree. Thanks! [[User:Uglemat|Uglemat]] ([[User talk:Uglemat|talk]]) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::Sorry, I don't care what others think, I know this article has been wrecked, and i will look in the history for anything salvageable, I would not hold our much hope mind [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:49, 14 February 2018
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cambodian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100219033351/http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/tribunal-background/charged-persons--persons-of-interest.html to http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/tribunal-background/charged-persons--persons-of-interest.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Removal of literature and media
User:Darkness Shines removed most of the items in the section 'in literature and media', with the ambiguous edit summary 'incited removed'. Going to revert, any discussion can happen below. Gabriel syme (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- And what exactly is wrong with removing uncited content? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah ok you meant to say uncited in the summary. Give me a bit, I'll pull some sources. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- That should do it, thanks for not reverting. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah ok you meant to say uncited in the summary. Give me a bit, I'll pull some sources. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Infonox
Is a pointless waste of space, given the genocide template is already there it just flatters everything up. Untill there is a consensus for it I shall be removing it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- But the genocide templates serves a different purpose. That template is about genocides in general whereas the infobox added by the IP is about the Cambodian genocide in particular, and as such contains an image, timespan, estimates of deaths, etc., which I think will be useful to readers who are unaware about these high-level details. There are currently two editors in favor (me and the IP) and one against, so in my opinion there is a consensus. Uglemat (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a vote count, you need consensus to add disputed content, we shall see if others weigh in. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Massive revert by Darkness Shines
Ū Notifying recent editors: Darkness Shines, Grammarian3.14159265359, GreyGreenWhy, Hijiri88, Mztourist, KylieTastic, WilliamThweatt, Theduong, Kimyoda, GrafZahl, Alexb102072
Darkness Shines just reverted to a revision from 2015 (see diff). Darkness Shines did not explain anything beyond "what a mess". I find this behaviour shocking. Darkness Shines is essentially saying that the "502 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users" are so worthless that removing these contributions does not even merit comment. Uglemat (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain I did comment, and yes those revisions are worthless given half are uncited, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Obviously, reverting my edits, which if I recall consisted of copyediting and tagging, as "unsourced" is ridiculous. Maybe reverting every other edit from the last three years would address my concerns, but this seems to be way out of line from a procedural standpoint, and should be undone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You neither commented nor explained your actions nor sought consensus before reverting almost three years worth of edits - to your own previous version, no less. I was preparing to revert you myself. "Given half are uncited" is a rather poor excuse for such actions. That means that at least half of what you erased was cited but you still felt it ok to summarily revert it without discussion? If you have problems with certain content, discuss it, fix it, or tag it so others can fix it; don't revert to a ~3-year-old version.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- (ec)So my summary is worthless then? Yet all the uncited shite is grand? Feck off bud, if anything's worth saving, I'll save it Darkness Shines (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You neither commented nor explained your actions nor sought consensus before reverting almost three years worth of edits - to your own previous version, no less. I was preparing to revert you myself. "Given half are uncited" is a rather poor excuse for such actions. That means that at least half of what you erased was cited but you still felt it ok to summarily revert it without discussion? If you have problems with certain content, discuss it, fix it, or tag it so others can fix it; don't revert to a ~3-year-old version.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- This does appear to be a bit over an over reaction considering Darkness Shines looks to have edited a dozen or more times in between without thinking is was a non-salvagable mess. Also the revert appears to have halfed the references so wasnt just the normal unsourced junk building up. I had only edited in passing, so not really in a possition to comment on the detail as not my area. I do agree with DS that some was uncited and should have been sourced or removed (the "State terror under the Khmer Rouge" section was particularly bad.), but it looks a bit heavy handed. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's all crap, I would have tried saving some but others insists I delete the lot, that's life heh Darkness Shines (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You want me to keep going? This time tomorrow were back to 2015, and i will not be arsed to save any of that shite, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You may think these incremental removals are tedious, but it makes a huge difference, because it allows other editors to see what you are thinking. Now editors can browse through your changes and see for themselves if they agree. Thanks! Uglemat (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't care what others think, I know this article has been wrecked, and i will look in the history for anything salvageable, I would not hold our much hope mind Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You may think these incremental removals are tedious, but it makes a huge difference, because it allows other editors to see what you are thinking. Now editors can browse through your changes and see for themselves if they agree. Thanks! Uglemat (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)