DouglasReay
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jamie, thanks for the feedback. I'm assuming you are referring to the external link I just added to Genius which pointed to Google's Knol on the same subject: Genius. I don't doubt your word that adding the link contravenes the guidelines somehow, but I've had a good read through the guidelines, and I really can't see which bit it contravenes. Please could you expand a bit on your reasoning, to help me see what I'm missing. --DouglasReay (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:COI (which applies to previous links you've added as well). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah! So making an external link to a document I was the editor of or contributed to counts as citing oneself, which may only be done neutrally and if the document is considered to be in a reliable publication or otherwise meets the notability criteria (ie someone other that oneself would agree that it was worth linking to). And therefore, since there may be a judgement call involved, it is thus potentially a conflict of interest, and hence the proceedure to follow is to not edit the main article, but rather to edit the discussion page, stick in a \{\{Request edit\}\}, and leave it up to other Wikipedians to decide whether to include the link or not, now you have drawn their attention to it. Have I understood correctly?--DouglasReay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:COI (which applies to previous links you've added as well). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
(By the way, the document in question is not intended to be 'original research' - it is intended to be a neutral summary of the research of others: mainly Polgar and Sidis, and is under review by various High IQ societies.)--DouglasReay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Should I go back and check my previous contributions and put in the same 'request edit' tag ?--DouglasReay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure; a "request edit" on the talk page(s) is the best way to handle it. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Done--DouglasReay (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure; a "request edit" on the talk page(s) is the best way to handle it. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Should I go back and check my previous contributions and put in the same 'request edit' tag ?--DouglasReay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
creating
edit
 |
 |
I have posted a reply to your request for feedback for Credo (card game) . You can read it here and reply, either with a question or to simply acknowledge it. Credo (card game) is currently a userspace draft, would you like me to publish it to mainspace for you after you've finished? Happy Editing!
Note: If I forgot to remove the "New Unreviewed Article" notice or you asked me to publish it to main space and I forgot, feel free to tell me and I'd be happy to do it for you!
|
Talkback
edit
Message added 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.