129.217.30.137

March 2024

Hello, I'm Mseingth2133444. I noticed that you recently removed content from Vector database without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 16:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Mseingth2133444: Check the edit, it has a reason in the edit summary! In my opinion we do not even need 1-2 links per database when they have Wikipedia articles, yet another link to their license (in particular when the license is also in Wikipedia, e.g., Apache license)... this just bloats the references without much use to the readers. To learn about Apache Lucene, they should just go to the Apache Lucene article. It would be nice if you would actually check the edit before pasting an inaccurate template on the talk page just because the edit is net-negative in the number of characters/references, thank you. 129.217.30.137 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is a project based on reliable sources. We do not make edits based on editors' opinions. Removing sources like that is generally not permitted without consensus. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mseingth2133444, too many references can be a problem, but I really don't think this is such a case. StereoFolic (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444: @StereoFolic: Someone clearly had the opinion that it is good to add links as "references" to every license in that table, to me this is Wikipedia:Citation overkill. What you somewhat advocate for is "first come first served"... I followed the classic WP:BOLD guideline. I prefer readability over useless web links, sorry, but obviously that is subjective. Nevertheless, your template-dropping was neither welcoming, nor accurate ("it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate"), and yet another example of how Wikipedia has become unwelcoming. I am not complaining that it has been reverted - if opinions differ, we may need to move it to the article talk page, but the way you just get dropped a careless generic template. 129.217.30.137 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree the template above is not the most applicable, but I encourage you to please assume good faith. The crux of the issue, that the citations should be included, is pretty reasonable. Since you've opened a discussion about its merits here, I will discuss that further there. StereoFolic (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444: Assume you have been looking up HNSW for a thesis, and noticed that the Wikipedia contents are really just stubs, and contributed there. Instead of a "thank you, but let's discuss this part on the talk page" you get a **user warning** template. After such a welcome, would you continue contributing to Wikipedia, or stop? Good bye, I am out for now. 129.217.30.137 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---