User talk:130.92.9.55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you for experimenting with the page Exclamation mark on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Matteo 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Millstone[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Douglas Millstone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Douglas Millstone. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Douglas Millstone, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. -- Blake01 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

January 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Searle (surname) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. PXK T /C 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

External links and unit testing[edit]

It's worth reading WP:EL and the external links policy. It's not how most editors think - Wikipedia works on the basis that a perfect article need have no external links. If Kent Beck is important to an article on unit testing, then we should link to him. However we should prefer to link to an on-wiki article about him, or maybe even add the relevant content to the unit testing article itself, under "history" or "development". ELs are really an admission that we've failed, and there's something missing from what we ought to be providing from this site itself.

You're pulling that out of nowhere, and WP:EL certainly doesn't say so. External links are often the best part of an article, putting the WP article in context, referring to scientific literature, books that cover a wider range of aspects, and so forth.

Obviously there are exceptions, links to "famous" paper like the Agile Manifesto, or to home pages of the subject of an article themselves, but our editing policy ought to be to avoid ELs, unless we can't do it otherwise; not to hunt down the best ELs we can, round them up and list the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you've summarized my position already for me, because that's precisely what I think we should do.
In scientific writing, you mention the related work in its own section, and that's fair. In WP, you have external sources at the bottom of the page, instead. Both is fair. But you can't cover everything in-line in the introduction. First, even if you manage, it won't be as visible, and more importantly: you won't manage. Many references will look and feel forced to the reader. So, by all means, round up the best external links and categorize them at the bottom of the article, a very visible place, because it's so easy to scroll there. 130.92.9.55 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)