From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Pietre-stones! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- WegianWarrior 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
Getting Started
|
|
|
|
Getting your info out there
|
|
|
|
Getting more Wikipedia rules
|
|
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
|
Getting along
|
|
|
|
Getting technical
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Why you can't add PS review to all the Freemasonry articles...
This is about thew third time I've removed PS Review from a Masonry-related article, os I think it's time to explain Wikipedia policies. On WP:EL, which explains the policy regarding external links, it states that personal sites are not appropriate, nor are advertising links. Now, obviously, PS is your site (or you've got a key role in it someplace, by your username), and unfortunately, as it's not an official site like a GL site, it's a personal site, and in the grand scheme of things, PS is also not any more notable than any other non-GL Masonic site. If you want to post direct links to works, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and any general links to the homepage will be removed. MSJapan 14:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The usual practice is to suggest the link in the talk page of the relevant article. It may well be a good link, but let other editors decide that. JASpencer 15:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- My goal was not to offend you, but rather to fix what I see as a recurrent problem with PS links, namely that they keep reappearing despite removals and explanations of why the removal was done. I'm actually well aware of the site, but as the site is not run by or under the auspices of a GL, it still is considered a personal site as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned (which is why I linked you to the policy in my original post). There are also plenty of site that do similar things to PS, and if you think about it, if your site is here linked in an article, WP is implicitly making a value judgment on the quality of your site and the articles and papers on it (and other related sites, articles, and papers, by them not being on here). For that reason and others, WP only allows sites designated as "official" to be top level linked. Specific materials on a topic are fine, but they need to be relevant to the topic, and very well done. Believe it or not, there are a number of Masonic scholastic luminaries on Wikipedia now and again, and they know what's good and what isn't. MSJapan 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
