Talk:Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom

many moves

the number of moves were down to my lack of understanding of how wiki works and not being able to find adequate explainations of how the WIKI category system works. So it was a matter of trial and error to see to try to find the result I was looking for. The result so far is not what i really wanted but it will surfice for now.

dolfrog (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New Sandbox to improve this article

This article is part of the WIkipedia Dyslexia project, and we have just created a Sandbox to help improve this and other articles in the Dyslexia support by Country series. So I you have a contribution to make please first have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country and scroll down to the UK section dolfrog (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO

I seem like there is a disagreement over what external link should be contained in this article. As this is a common issue a group of Wikipedians have come up with a guideline at WP:ELNO to outline what should and should not be an external link. If everyone has not already seen this hope this helps. If one disagrees with the guidelines that should be brought up on its talk page. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James, having read WP:ELNO it would appear the most if not all of the links which were deleted in the recent dispute should not have been removed, as they were contributing additional and supportive information for this article, which can only be judged by having a prior knowledge of the articles contents, and the the information provided by web sites linked to by these External Links. Which would suggest that all editors should carry out extensive research before deleting existing content, and discuss any such actions with other editors prior to making such changes. dolfrog (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

or you'll leave them abusive messages? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately some editors only seek to delete the positive content contributions of others editors without discussing how alternative improvements can be made. And even make false promises to provide an alternative method of presenting the information, when they have no intention what so ever in carrying out that promise, so if you consider being encouraged to keep your promises abusive, then may be you should consider the abuse of not carrying out your promise. dolfrog (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The central point is that Wikipedia isn't a directory. It looks to me like justified deletion of a linkfarm. Of those remaining, in this version, I suggest further deletion of the one labelled Dyslexia Research Listings: it's merely a personal link collection on a commercial website. The editorialising in the link description "the (flawed?) Rose Literacy review" is unacceptable too. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)