User talk:67.177.149.119

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your 'archiving' of Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

That action seems very suspicious. 'Archiving' that selectively deletes material, is considered vandalism. Please refrain from do so. Thank you. Crum375 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a perfectly legit. archiving. I reverted your revert to reflect this. 67.177.149.119 02:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crum375 here...it's a bogus archiving: you've selectively archived some topics and not others, with the result that neither the archive nor the main talk page reflect the actual order of the discussion. You've removed the notice of past official actions, which is a fairly important one, given the edit situation of this article. Because this particular article is quite contentious (to put it mildly), it's important to keep the discussions as an accurate record of how things were discussed. And it's important to avoid hiding (or even looking like you are trying to hide) discussions (even not-recently-active ones) that are relevant to the ongoing edit situation. The talk page is neither especially long nor especially active, so there's no real need to archive. DMacks 02:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I archived topics that were no longer relevant or old. I left certain topics on the page because they are either still evolving or are recent. The arbitration is also old news. The talk page is long enough for the "Note: This page is XX kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage..." box to appear at the top of the page indicating that the wikisystem believes that archiving materials is appropriate to reduce the size. 67.177.149.119 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Archiving must be an exact copy of the archived material. Intentional removal (or addition) of material during the archiving process is considered vandalism. Also, any notices on top of the page (such as links to AfD's and ArbCom cases) must not be modified during archiving. Thank you for your understanding. Crum375 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
All materials moved to the archive are exactly word-for-word as they were in the main talk page. I didn't realize that removing notices on the top of the page was wrong, I won't do it again. 67.177.149.119 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this. As you know it's still not the same. Archiving is not meant as a tool to circumvent rules or game the system. Please let some else, unrelated, archive this page, which is not in a drastic need of archiving. Thank you, Crum375 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Now than an administrator has taken care of it that can be the end of it. Since materials were archived I guess I was right for the most part. 67.177.149.119 04:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

No. But do stop being the pot calling the kettle black. Your edit was uncivil, and was bordering on personal attacks, so I suggest you to be not so pompous about it. --210physicq (c) 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But at least I am not an admin doing it, it's a much different ballgame in my opinion when an admin is acting like that. They should be held to a higher standard of behavior. 67.177.149.119 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, all users should be held to the same high standard of behavior, even anonymous IP addresses. Leuko 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As well as editors that don't even know the difference between what is and is not an offense here even though they think they do. 67.177.149.119 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/7/2E/User_talk%7E67.177.149.119.html"