User talk:BWKilp

Welcome!

 * }

Edit Summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. —  Spike Toronto  03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page In Defense of Reason has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://yvorwinters.blogspot.com/. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In Defense of Reason
Hi BWKilp. I was doing some editing on In Defense of Reason when I noticed the phrase, “the book has had only minor influence in American literary culture.” There is a breed of Wikipedian whose worldview is somewhat exclusionary. They seek to find any reason to exclude (i.e., delete) new pages to the encyclopedia. One of the ones they use most often is to say that the subject is not notable. I think that we need to ensure that this phrase is re-worded so that it is not pounced upon. The key here is that a wikiarticle must assert the notability of its subject in order to prevent its speedy deletion. Since I am not familiar with the book, could you rework that phrase so that the article asserts the notability of the subject rather than essentially saying that the subject is not notable? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  03:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The specific notability guidelines for books are found at WP:NBOOK. I think that the article you have started is interesting and I want us to ensure that it meets the guidelines at WP:NBOOK. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  03:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have wikified the article for you and done some copy editing of it. There are two sections that need to have verifiable references/citations added: In Defense of Reason and In Defense of Reason. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Great re-write of the part I was discussing. It really highlights the notability of the work. Also, thank you for adding more inline citations. I have removed the various verifiability templates in the two sections where they were and at the top of the page. You can read the edit summaries in the article’s history to see the rationale. I would like to nominate the article for inclusion in the main page’s did you know section, if you have no objections. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  20:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With this edit, I have nominated In Defense of Reason. You can read the nomination here. Let me know if you have any problems with this. If selected, the “did you know” will appear on the Wikipedia main page. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  04:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi BW. The editors at DYK have asked for a few more inline citations before they can feature In Defense of Reason in the daily DYK. In particular, they wanted the first three paragraphs in the Content section referenced and an additional reference for the second paragraph in the Style section. Not having written the article and not being familiar with the collection, I have done the best I could. I have done the following: Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Content section, I have referenced the first three paragraphs to Winters himself. Is that correct?
 * In the Style section, I have relocated the New Criterion reference to the end of the paragraph assuming that it related to the entire paragraph. Is that correct?

DYK for In Defense of Reason
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)