User talk:CardicalAce

May 2019
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Engineer. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

An extended welcome
Hi CardicalAce. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Quoting poor references
Please be very careful when you are keyword-searching for references to add to existing Wikipedia prose - two I have examined that you have added to Inge Stoll are unacceptable, as they mirror the content of Wikipedia itself. Use of websites in this way - where their content has been plagiarised from Wikipedia - is known as WP:CIRCULAR. The first is a privately-owned commercial business offering industrial buildings (http://www.asgardsss.co.uk/blog/cat/motorcycle-news/post/isle-of-man-tt) - this is known as WP:SPS a self-published source. The second appears to be a wiki - that is, a crowd-sourced portal requiring membership/login which has already taken the content from Wikipedia (https://prabook.com/web/inge.stoll/2363586). I have requested advice on this website. Please familiarise yourself with WP:RS - anything you see with "blog" as above, or forums, chat rooms, fanzines, self-published (personal websites) are not acceptable sources. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * After seeking specific guidance, several editors have confirmed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard that Prabook is unacceptable both as a source and/or as a reference. Additional links are contained therein which refer to discussions in 2015 and 2016.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)