User talk:Metaxal

To Alexf: Revert your changes?
Hi, you recently blocked me (I edited a link that appeared to contain my username), and after discussion Master Of Puppets unblocked me (see above). However, I think the changes I had made, that cost me to be blocked, are still legit, or at least the link(s) should appear in some form. M.o.p. told me to check with you. Your edit on page Racket features (history) is about 2 changes: a link toward one of my projects (the link I wanted to update), and a link toward PLaneT, which has nothing to do with me, and is a dependency of the programming language that is discussed on that page. I think at least the PLaneT link really belongs there. Regarding the link to my project, since I did not myself put it there in the first place, I believe it could still belong there. One or both links could be added as in-place links (that's the edit I had done), or they could be added to the External Links section (but they would be harder to find and a bit too far away from their context from the section "Gui programming"). Another option would be to leave the page as is and not revert your changes, of course.

What do you think? Thanks, Metaxal (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Back from vacation. I read the decision above and agree with it. As per your question, I have added back the company's website to the article,but as external links. I stand by the decision to remove it from the article itself as it was put in a way to mean "this is were you get the code". This, although true, reeks of instructions and Wikipedia is not a manual, but a link as an external reference is ok. -- Alexf(talk) 13:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But wouldn't a footnote make more sense than just an external link, as is done on the main page of the language? It seems strange to make the reader himself scroll down to the external links section to find the relevant information; or should this be considered bad style? Metaxal (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, when it is for reference purposes. In this case I felt it was not a reference (where it was put) but an instruction and pointing to their site (i.e. borderline spam), therefore the change. As a it may be ok. -- Alexf(talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the clarification, I think I understand now about the installation instructions thing, I will be more careful about that in the future. I still added the reference (as I do see it as a reference). I also reworded the sentence a little to make it look less like installation instructions.Metaxal (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks better. -- Alexf(talk) 15:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)