User talk:Mitnickenizer

Hi, I have redirected the page Type equivalence that you recently created to Type system, which contains a more broad overview of typing schemes. If you wish to contribute more to this subject, please see Nominative type system or Structural type system. Thanks! erc ^{talk/contribs} 06:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not continue editing Type equivalence without good rationale. The redirected pages are well-written and there is nothing wrong with the way they are laid out. What you have written seems like a guide or an essay, which is not what wikipedia is about. Please feel free to leave a comment on my talk page if you have any further questions. erc ^{talk/contribs} 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Type Equivalence

I am not arguing that those are nicely written pages, but they feel to be lacking something that this page had. Furthermore, I feel that those pages are done in such a way that the information would be inappropriate in those locations.

Also, how are they not really what wikipedia is? I would like further information on this as you seem to know all about reverting pages back to previous states, and are some kind of college student, so you must know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitnickenizer (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The tone of your pages were informal ("As you can tell..."). Wikipedia aims to be a formal encyclopedia. If you wish to add in examples of code, you can do so on the existing pages. What you wrote seemed like an essay. What did you feel that the other pages lacked but was inappropriate to be put on there? erc ^{talk/contribs} 07:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)