Talk:Ben Horowitz

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Reverse chronology a bad choice - objections to change? edit

It is disjointing to read sections backwards. When I wish to gain insight into a person I am wanting to lay down a chronology for my use - which is by nature a forward one. As I do this, I am naturally scanning for details from section to section. By having a reverse chronology, the flow is broken from the forward flow within sections.

This article covers all basic journalistic structures, and except for teasers, no use of reverse chronology is mentioned.

http://www.writing-world.com/dawn/dawn06.shtml How to Craft a Great Article, Part I: Structure, Focus, Unity and Flow

However, I do not want to change this myself, before asking for objections.

Xgenei (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

+1 on having this in forward chronology, which confused me when I landed here.

James Aylett (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Horowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply