User talk:Catcentral

Welcome!

Hello, Catcentral, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Bob Gibson (musician). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reference to itself

While it's fine to include material that's properly sourced in another linked article, please don't add text like "as per the Wikipedia entry on." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I saw at least a dozen references to wikipedia articles in this one. So it seems arbitrary that some paragraphs certainly source wikipedia pages but you're telling me I can't. What's that about? Catcentral (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SYNTH, which you violated in your last edit. Those references don't even mention The Byrds. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So others do it but it's not allowed here. Got it. Is my latest source at Billboard acceptable? I just object that the information about the Byrds is wrong. The Beach Boys were the only competition in 1964-66 to the Beatles, and the Byrds were nowhere near them on the charts. Catcentral (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ps - The original source I listed in Germany for charting singles is actually legit, and I found the charting numbers on it originally, but it redirects to the main page. Catcentral (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that passive-aggressive "So others do it but it's not allowed here. Got it." That something is done in another article doesn't mean you can do it here; it might well mean that maybe you should go clean up that other article. And Jamie is right: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, it's really as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not passive aggressive to note that I have found hundreds of self-referential links across thousands of wiki articles. I just am confused because of the seeming inconsistency of enforcement. And of course, you don't seem to allow that I actually studied the entire article and saw numerous links to wiki articles. That's not passive aggressive. That's wondering about a seeming inconsistency. Please don't attribute a motive to me I don't have. 97.124.73.5 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then do something about those links. Unless you mean wikilinks, which is an entirely different thing. And speaking of passive-aggressive: that unasked for email you just sent me is full of passive-aggressive and loaded questions, so I am going to mute you--sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not understanding that I am supposed to challenge self-referential links. I tried to research how to contest some content earlier on another site, but couldn't figure out how to challenge erroneous statements and couldn't figure out how to ask someone like you how to do it, if I should do it, and all the other protocols. I have been an editor in multiple media since 1985, but don't presume anything when it comes to other peoples' posted content. You seem to be overreacting. I only sent an email because your site directed me there. I have no idea what goes where in these interactions. 97.124.73.5 (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]