User talk:62.178.226.211

February 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Again (1949 song) has been reverted. Your edit here to Again (1949 song) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.discogs.com/Etta-James-Sings-For-Lovers/master/802189) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.


 * Thank you very much for your kind attempt to explain. Sadly, the rules you refer to are the main reasons why, years ago, I stopped contributing to Wikipedia, finding myself unable to cope with each and every rule and ending up with my contributions being removed each and every time. Only, I rarely found an explanation like yours, even after asking what I may have done wrong. It is not because rules are rules, and even less because of their purpose. It is how untraceable and hard to handle they appear.


 * In this case I am unable to do anything about it. It is hard enough for me to try comprehending, as English is not my native language. I can easily use it for everyday purposes, but I tend to fail when it comes to rules and terms, because then I rarely find what I do not instantly understand without help in a dictionary, even when ploughing through discussions about specific terms, phrases aso.


 * What made me add what you found was simply this: I discovered a version of "Again" by Etta James on YouTube, wanted to see who else may have sung it to also listen to those versions, and on this occasion saw Etta James' name missing in the article though my ears try to convince me her take is among the ones others may also want to hear. Recently, I stumbled upon several discogs.com-links on Wikipedia, giving me the impression this domain is regarded both more complete than others and specifically reliable by Wikepedians.


 * I have no idea which other source may list this recording and for which criteria (which I neither am familiar with nor know where I could find them) be acknowledged as "reliable". Result so far: I found a version definitely sung by Etta James, but – as if this very fact would be neglectable whereas rules I don't even know of must be obeyed – again is not allowed to be mentioned in this article. Because I have absolutely no clue how to fix this, and ... sorry, but although I spent mouch of my lifetime with unpaid political, social and cultural work for the public (in several NGOs), often helping others to find their way through some bureaucratic jungle (and knowing that bureaucracy to some extent is a necessity), I see no sense in trying to add some small but perhaps remarkable information, already accepting that this may deserve, say, half an hour of additional research for proper sources I should mention, but then having to spend perhaps hours in addition searching for some proof of which I know neither where to find it nor what criteria precisely it must fulfill.


 * So, I sadly accept that Wikipedia, with hurdles like these, is a much less complete – and thus, in terms of completeness, itself a much less reliable – source of information (not at all your fault, of course) than I would like it to be. I tried, I failed, I see no time-saving way to fix this myself, so it seemingly must be left unsettled. Or can you surprise me with some easy to comprehend sort of instruction for an effortlessly achievable solution?


 * 62.178.226.211 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)