7336jeremy

November 2023

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Fisher & Paykel. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

I hear where you're coming from but I had replaced the original source the 2007 Annual Report by Fisher and Paykel which also wasnt available as an archive from Wayback, with the more recent 2010 Annual Report. It didn;t make sense to keep the citation, honestly I think the whole sentence should be deleted, as it adds one weirdly specific detail in an entry that is otherwise quite general and vague. 7336jeremy (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

whybuy.com.au

Checking the history of this blog and website after you expressed concern that Wikipedia could possibly have plagiarised it, it looks like the https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog/celebrating-history-fisher-paykels-fascinating-timeline/ blog entry was created on 5 November 2023, within half an hour or so of you adding it to the article as a reference. (It was blank at 8:52am and complete at 9:45am, you added it as a reference at 9:37.)

If you are an employee or the founder of whybuy.com.au, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before making any further article edits related to it. Belbury (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury thanks for the unsolictied advice - I've stated several times that I'd be pleased to replace the reference with a more reliable one if you could find one. Throwing out accusation after accusation isn't realy productive. User talk:Belbury 7336jeremy (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A professional conflict of interest is a different issue to the quality of the website being linked to, but it is a very important one. I wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. Belbury (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury if you'd put the same effort into finding a higher quality source than the one I have found as you're putting into this disagreement, we'd have been finished by now. I'm not interested in going back and forth with you anymore in 3 separate forums you've opened up. 115.70.87.152 (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you were the IP who was adding a whybuy.com.au reference to the missing sock article yesterday? Belbury (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you may need to read wp:bludgeon, let others have a say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Im just replying to those replying to me, should I not? 7336jeremy (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You might also need to read wp:spa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)