User talk:History444

External links

You have added this book as a reference or external link to many pages today. If the book is not a source for the article, and it is not an external link (as it is a book), I don't see any justification for including a mention of it on a particular page. Can you please explain your rationale? Thanks. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New to the site--forgive my foibles...just wanted to provide users with access to a source that directly relates to the subject. Sort of an "for additional information please see..." heading. How should I post such recommmendations? Or is that not advised? History444 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)History444[reply]

Sure; it's forgivable :). Adding the book as a "see also" kind of thing might stand on some articles over time, but I'd guess that it might get removed from many other articles if other editors might not see how the book is directly related to the subject of that particular article. Therefore, if you think this book would be helpful to readers interested in a particular Wikipedia article, the way to make an enduring mention of this book would be to add it as a reference to specific unreferenced facts in the article or to add new facts from the book to existing articles, citing the book as the source of that new material. Either of those two ways would be very appropriate. If you need any help figuring out how to add such references, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, or ask me (or others) if you have any trouble. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Qqqqqq. History444 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)History444[reply]

However, other editors can look at the edit (adding the same cite to 42 topics, usually at the front of a list without regard for the existing order by date or author's name), and question its usefulness. Googling on the book, give 177 hits. All of the ones that I see are either promotional (seeing copies) or part of the 42 topics modified in Wikipedia. It's a new book (2008), with no reviews to give a sense of how reliable the book is. Googling on the author's name gives 26 hits (about half mentioned in the promotional links). An edit like this raises the concern that someone is adding the cites to promote the book on Wikipedia. Hope that helps Tedickey (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tedickey. I did not realize--but I am very glad to see that there are folks out there who monitor the type of information put on the site. I never knew it was so well policed. I received an advanced copy of this book from a friend. My first exploration of Wiki coincided with my having read the book--got a little carried away I suppose. Is there a way I could remove all of my references at once, or do I have to go back and do each one manually? History444 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)History 444[reply]

Just one-by-one (I don't know of a tool to do this). You can see your changes in via the "contribs" link in the history - that helps finding things. thanks. Tedickey (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a bunch. Left some where I thought useful. Thanks to all for the advice. History444 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)History444[reply]

no problem Tedickey (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]