237:
Yes, by all means please feel free to seek 3rd-party opinions from other
Knowledge members on this. I certainly don't know everything these is to know about Knowledge, and I could be way off on my interpretation of the guidelines and rules as it applies to this situation. If you are able to get some
198:
I think one of the main issue here is that very few published people actually contribute to
Knowledge - their work is usually added by neutral, 3rd-party editors, which satisfies neutrality guidelines. Knowledge's policies are generally written with laymen in mind - designed to deter us non-notable
140:(at least according to Knowledge standards), as it is your own personal website and isn't subject to the same fact-checking that publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers have (this sentence was taken from
147:
On the other hand, I do feel that your edits have been made in the spirit of adding useful information to
Knowledge, and that is what our shared goal is here. And it does seem that at least some of your work has been published in many various
131:
I do believe this situation is a bit sticky. While I do respect the work you are doing, there are a couple problems with the links in question. Adding links to a website that you own, run, or maintain violates
190:
This is why the situation is so sticky. I apologize for any hard feelings my messages may have caused. I do not mean to belittle your work at all. My only concerns are with neutrality, reliable sources, and
156:
Whenever available, reference locations for your work other than your website. For instance, if one of your articles is published in the NYT, reference that article instead of the one on your website.
168:
I honestly don't mean to at all discourage you from contributing to
Knowledge. Though I strongly encourage linking to other websites or referencing other material that more clearly meets
163:
more often instead of just adding external links. Most of the link additions I've seen so far have been "bare" links which don't serve as a citation for any of the content in the article.
203:. It gets a little fuzzy when you try to interpret it for an editor who is an expert in their field, contributing their own work. If the reference isn't a RS, it's considered
238:
opinions of your own, just have them post here or on my talk page, or include links to the appropriate discussions. As I mentioned above, I have posted a request to
112:
to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the
65:
49:
25:
to
Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
93:
68:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
113:
34:
22:
105:
54:
101:
175:
If you would like to discuss this any further, don't hesitate to leave me another message on my talk page --
214:
on this. While the work you do is valuable, I'm just not completely sure whether or not your website meets
79:
Hey, Barry, it's great to have you hear at
Knowledge! I remember reading that great profile of you in the
29:
61:
246:
222:
179:
120:
172:, going forward I'll keep our conversation in mind and won't remove any reasonable links that I see.
69:
199:
experts from contributing personal thoughts, essays, ideas etc. that haven't been backed up by a
44:
76:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
169:
243:
219:
176:
117:
92:
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to
Knowledge.
160:
97:
39:
239:
215:
211:
204:
200:
192:
141:
137:
133:
84:
248:
224:
181:
122:
87:
151:
Considering all of this, I feel a good compromise would be if you:
83:
a while back. If you have any questions feel free to ask me.--
136:. Also, I believe that the site doesn't qualify as a
8:
116:to learn more about Knowledge. Thanks. --
60:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
7:
72:, ask me on my talk page, or place
14:
210:I think I may have to ask for a
1:
30:The five pillars of Knowledge
144:, "Evaluating reliability").
50:How to write a great article
269:
134:external links guidelines
123:21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
88:23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
249:21:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
225:19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
182:17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
100:or a mere collection of
21:Hello, Barry Popik, and
170:verification guidelines
104:. You are, however,
70:Knowledge:Questions
106:encouraged to add
35:How to edit a page
205:original research
193:original research
260:
110:instead of links
94:Knowledge is not
75:
268:
267:
263:
262:
261:
259:
258:
257:
218:'s criteria. --
201:reliable source
138:reliable source
73:
55:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
266:
264:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
230:
229:
228:
227:
208:
196:
185:
184:
173:
165:
164:
157:
153:
152:
149:
145:
129:
102:external links
96:a vehicle for
81:New York Times
66:sign your name
58:
57:
52:
47:
42:
37:
32:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
265:
250:
247:
245:
241:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
226:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
202:
197:
194:
189:
188:
187:
186:
183:
180:
178:
174:
171:
167:
166:
162:
158:
155:
154:
150:
146:
143:
139:
135:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
121:
119:
115:
111:
109:
103:
99:
95:
90:
89:
86:
82:
77:
71:
67:
63:
56:
53:
51:
48:
46:
43:
41:
38:
36:
33:
31:
28:
27:
26:
24:
19:
18:
114:welcome page
107:
91:
80:
78:
59:
20:
16:
15:
212:3rd opinion
98:advertising
244:AbsolutDan
220:AbsolutDan
177:AbsolutDan
118:AbsolutDan
74:{{helpme}}
62:Wikipedian
40:Help pages
128:Hi Barry,
64:! Please
148:sources.
45:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
159:Try to
108:content
23:welcome
85:Pharos
240:WP:3O
216:WP:RS
142:WP:RS
242:. --
161:cite
207:.
195:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.