Talk:Borescope/Archives/2014

(Ext links)

Several external links were recently removed with they claim they were "spammy" while another external link was left. Presumably the editor left the one external link because they did not feel it was spammy. I have been searching the policy pages and found no clear definition for spammy links. The links which were removed add information to the page on How to choose a borescope and various borescope technologies. They include diagrams to help the interested reader see more clearly what a borescope looks like and how it is constructed. All 3 links (the 2 deleted and the 1 left) point to pages on web sites of borescope manufacturers who would obviously like it if a reader decided to buy their products. None of the pages are "sales" pages and if the reader wants to explore one of the sites further, then that is their prerogative.

 

External links

• How to choose a borescope
• Borescope Technology
• Borescope History at Lenox Instrument Company

Please elaborate on what makes an external link worth of inclusion versus spammy.
LandyAtkinson 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   At 15:16, 9 July 2008, a finicky colleague forged a spelling correction ("worthy" presumably intended where "worth" had been saved) into the above signed contrib.
   That misleadingly attributed change has been reverted by me.
--Jerzy•t 01:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

   If you need *an effort* to understand what a colleague was trying to say on a talk page, but succeed in figuring it out what usage or spelling or typing error they made, and want to save our other colleagues from duplicating your effort (or imagine your colleagues will give you credit for your effort), then

-- put a response, indented below the flawed contrib (and below its sig, duh)
-- italicize it so they'll maybe look at your opinion of what the apparently erring colleague meant to say before they duplicate your effort, and
-- sign it with "~~~~". (Even if you don't care about the credit. And especially if you feel like some jerk might somehow blame you: your account or IP address is more likely to be pursued via the page's edit history if you make bad intent seem more likely by forcing pursuers to consult the edit history page.)
--Jerzy•t 01:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(Bore/Fiber)

The body of the article says that borescopes differ from fiberscopes because they are not flexible, but then a few lines down talks about both rigid and flexible borescopes. I don't know enough to fix this inconsistency.
dblanchard (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)