Talk:Mario Machado

Possible spam link in references

search "epik" as in "epik.com" Social Media platform Gab recently moved to "Epik", so I ran a text search of the "wikipedia.org" site for "epik" and found the link in this Article. No obvious connection between this Article, and Epik. It might be legit, but I doubt it. Also, if there's one spam link, there's probably more.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: The edit which added the reference to epik.com occurred here. This appears to be an arguably negligent use of the reFill tool to fill in details about a reference that had been a bare URL, but in no way is it vandalism nor is it likely to be intentional spamming. Technically it is a spam link, now, but if we assume the other editors were acting in good faith, the original URL went somewhere useful and the fact that the link later suffered linkrot is not their fault (although, as a primary reference, we might have preferred a better source).

So the question is, what needs to be done here? If you search for nosotros.org on WP you'll find that in some other places the citations now include an archive-url parameter. That's probably an available solution here. You want to do this yourself, so I suggest that you read through the information at WP:LINKROT. I'll be watching for your response of either more questions or some suggestion of what you think the next step is. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Here's a little more help and encouragement. The most recent working archive link appears to be this one. The full documentation for {{cite web}} contains information about parameters archive-url, archive-date, and dead-url. In this case, that dead-url parameter should be set to "unfit". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)