MajorHealey
Owsley Stanley
editGreetings, MajorHealey. Thanks for your recent contributions to the Owsley Stanley article. However, please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked. That talks about some things that it's better not to link, one of which is "everyday words understood by most readers in context". For example, in the Owsley Stanley article, in a section about his diet, the words "meat", "eggs", "butter", and "cheese" are linked, but really shouldn't be. You didn't link those words, but your recent edits have added to the previously existing situation. Anyway, I've tagged the article as overlinked. Maybe I'll take some of those out myself if I get around to it. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 02:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Mudwater - thanks for taking the time. First of all, you may excuse if i didn't reply correctly (technically) as i'm only adding stuff very occasionally as you might have seen, while stumbling onto missing/incorrect datas. Well, thanks - concerning a few of the links i did set, and i know you are talking about terms such as the "attorney" - yep, i get the point; i did something else and stumbled onto this. Unnecessary, i totally agree. Honestly, my initial intention was to - 1. basicly link the "dropping out" to the existing entry: for i still think here it is indeed a relevant link needed for clarification in an(y) serious online dictionary - for without this (as well as a few others), parts of the original article do in truth sound a bit as if they've been adapted from an underground paper, only to be fully understood by "those in the know"/ reads: understood by "most readers" only if those are considered "freaks" - which is not the way i understand Wikipedia and its general goal - 2. as well as to link the "Bear's Choice" album to it's existing wiki article by a slightly differently spelled (original) title. While typing, i just found more and more terms i could/should link to - probably to many, as you rightly pointed out. But then, as i tried to explain concerning the former term, you might allow for me to generally disagree on slang/underground terms such as a "hit" (of LSD) - definitely not a term to be used officially, so i still think this should be linked for clarification of meaning. Don't get me wrong, i myself am into lots of underground literature and i'm fully supporting the use of the original language - only i would double-check if this text is written clear enough for an objective and serious dictionary article. Anyway, i want to let you know i do appreciate your work + words (as i now not only will definitely shy away from linking too much...) - all the best! PS: i hope i used the right style of typing since i'm not too familiar with this... — MajorHealey (Talk) 02:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. You're right that some of the terms in that article would probably not be understood by the average reader. I agree that that justifies some of the links, as you've explained. As for your style of replying to my post, you got it right. For optional extra credit, you could notify the editor you're responding to by using a {{Reply to}} template. But as you see you didn't need to do that in this case, because I put your talk page on my watchlist (or I could have just remembered to check back periodically). Anyway, thanks again. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Did you sign your post above using four tildes (i.e. ~~~~)? If yes, you might have your time zone set incorrectly. The time in the signature of your post says 02:29 UTC, but I can tell from the talk page history that you made it at 01:29 UTC. (Click on Preferences in the upper right, then go to the Appearance tab and find the Time Offset section.) — Mudwater (Talk) 02:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. You're right that some of the terms in that article would probably not be understood by the average reader. I agree that that justifies some of the links, as you've explained. As for your style of replying to my post, you got it right. For optional extra credit, you could notify the editor you're responding to by using a {{Reply to}} template. But as you see you didn't need to do that in this case, because I put your talk page on my watchlist (or I could have just remembered to check back periodically). Anyway, thanks again. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |