User talk:Ddb2

May 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Academic conference. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. I have explained the reasons for the reversion on both the article Talk page and the anonymous IP talk page you used previously. Adding a link here will not drive traffic to your site. andy (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the WP policy, then I ask -- as many others have -- that the external links to Oxford Abstracts and Community of Science be removed. Both clearly "promote a product" and were added to the article (on 16 October 2005) by an anonymous user. Also, I really don't care that links in WP are "disregarded by some search engines" and "will not drive traffic to [our] site". I read that the first time you informed me of it. IMHO, users who read articles dealing with subjects like academic conferences are likely interested in software solutions for managing academic conferences. I know it's a slippery slope, though, and I appreciate your position that external links should be prohibited. I just don't find your rationale for keeping the two links that are already there convincing -- especially the link count in Google. If that's what sets the bar for validity, then give me a few days and we'll definitely be more "valid" than OA and COS combined! Ddb2 (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits to Abstract management because you seem to be pushing a particular point of view and haven't supplied any evidence to support it. Also please note that when an article is predominantly in one English dialect it is generally considered not appropriate to change it to another dialect - see WP:RETAIN andy (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about my "particular point of view"? The article is about features and functionality for abstract management software. My changes were intended to clarify the language because I found it vague. Further, the language that was there previously makes certain assumptions about software requirements that are too specific. (Namely, the requirement -- not option -- that the software send an email confirmation.) I'm new to WP, so I now realize that it's considered good manners to present any proposed edits in the Discussion page first. If that's really why my changes were rejected, then mea culpa. And thank you for the information about dialects. You have to admit, there's a lot of rules to follow here and it's impossible to keep up with them all at first. Ddb2 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was editor for a weekly publication for five years, so sentences like this really make me itch: "These vary in detail, but in broad terms they must include a submission phase (usually abstract submission but sometimes full papers), reviewing, decision making by the programme committee, building of the conference programme and publishing of the programme and the abstracts or papers (online, in print or on a CD-ROM or other digital medium)." It needs correction and clarity. I was just hoping to provide some. I guess I'll take it up on the Discussion page. Ddb2 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]