User talk:MasterB1aster

Use of wikilinks

Generally speaking, links to other articles should be used only when the linked articles contain content which is likely to help someone wishing to know more related to the subject of the article in which the links appear. For example, in the article Dutch East India Company, there are links to Fugger, Welser, and Dutch Revolt. All three of those articles contain information relevant to the Dutch East India Company, and all three of them are on subjects which many readers of the encyclopaedia will not know about, so the links may be useful to them. On the other hand none of the articles Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese contain anything relevant to the Dutch East India Company, nor is it likely that people reading that article will not know what "Spanish" "Italian" and "Portuguese" mean, so it is highly unlikely that the links will be any help to anyone reading the article about the Dutch East India Company. Including such links of little or no relevance is not only pointless, but can actually be harmful, as they clutter up an article, and if there are too many of them they make it hard for a reader to recognise which links are likely to be helpful and which aren't.

On a completely different point, please try to make sure that your edit summaries accurately reflect what your edits actually do. For example, you gave the edit summary "Moved to archive" when you were merely deleting content, not moving to an archive. Misleading edit summaries can cause problems, such as wasting the time of an editor who searches to try to find where the archived content is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, can you explain what content in the articles Alliance and United States are likely to be helpful to someone wishing to know about Inglourious Basterds? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit and again in this one you linked from the disambiguation page David Davies to the article Nature. That article contains no mention of anyone named "Davies". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - should have been Nature_(journal) MasterB1aster (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. Thanks for putting it right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]