Point of information: A (Personal attack removed) editor who has made no contributions to this issue is (Personal attack removed) removing the earlier comments on this page that relate directly to this RfC - Epipelagic (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
To archive, or not to archive...
I don't want to distract from this RfC, but why are "Epipelagic" and "Andy Dingley" so hell bent on restoring an entire archived talk page of needless or irrelevant content that goes back 12 years? There is only one discussion that could have have any relevance, and that has already been directly linked to the OP by the editor that posted the RfC (who incidentally thanked me for archiving the talk page). Now I've asked "Epipelagic" after he reverted the archiving (both times), but he refused to answer, and instead decided to post personal attacks instead (ironic ones at that), which so far is his only contribution to the RfC. "Andy Dingley", who hasn't participated in the RfC at all, has suddenly jumped in to tag-team-edit-war with "Epipelagic", and likewise, has offerred no explanation why ancient and completely irrelevant content must be added back to this page. Instead, his only comment is a threat to "take this to ANI". So other than the 31/2 year old discussion, that as it turns out these two were a part of, why does this page need all this content restored? Can either of you (finally) answer that? Please & Thank you - wolf 01:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to archive the rest, I've no objection. But the last discussion is highly relevant here, and should be visible on the same page now to save wasting a bunch of effort. I was specifically pinged because I'd been involved in that discussion but hadn't (as no longer visible) been pinged in the RfC.
- Probably the best thing to do now is to add a comment to the relevant section (to stop it archiving) and then let the 'bot do the rest, as and when it feels like it. This is otherwise just a bunch of pointless make work. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just leave things well alone Wolf, and drop your pointless drama and silly interrogations. All you are achieving is disruption. You know very well the 12-year old stuff is not an issue. Archive that if you find it tranquillising. Gahrr... what am I doing answering such silly questions? Epipelagic (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok so we've finally established, from both of you that it's just the final discussion from 2015 that you were after.
- But that begs the question; why revert entire page? (Multipe times)
- Why even revert the 2015 discussion?
- Why not just copy segmemts you need, or the whole thing?
- Or, why even bring any of that discussion at all?
- Its already been linked, by the RfC creator from the OP to the archive page.
- And I gotta ask, what would you do if the whole page had been archived over a year ago, when it should've been?
- Still copy the entire page and dump it here? #Or copy the whole discussion here, then do that little trick where you reply to a 2015 comment in that last discussion, "locking it here" as a "current" discussion?
- (You do know it doesn't work that way?)
- All you should've done is quote from the discussion and link to it, which is what should've happened here.
- This 'discussion' we're having mow should have taken place after "Epipelagic"'s first revert was re-archived.
- I'm sure we could've worked something out, if Epipelagic could've just layed off the reverts, insults and that attack post. #Epipelagic telling me to "archive the 12 old stuff, as if I hadn't done that already, three times today. Look inward, my friend, before lashing outward.
- Also, canvassing Andy to come in as meat-puppet to tag-team edit was not cool.
- Andy, I just wish you'd looked before you leapt. If you took a moment to size things up, I don't think you would've reverted, at least not everything.
- But, I guess we can consider the matter closed now? - wolf 06:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- One month later with no further replies, it would seem so. - wolf 14:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)