User talk:Charles Cingolani

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I thought I'd warn you, Wikipedia discourages the creation of articles about yourself; the theory is that if you're famous enough for an article, someone else will create it, and otherwise the vanity pages are just too hard to sort out. We appreciate your signing up, however. See What Wikipedia is not and The perfect article for more guidelines on what to include. Also, here's a list of things that could use doing (though of course you're under no obligation:

Again, welcome, and best wishes! [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:40, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Links to your websites
Charles, please do not continue to add links to your websites to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote your work, please see our external links, spam and editing with a conflict of interest guidelines.

If you believe the sites contain information of encyclopedic value to the articles place them on the talk page with an explanation of who you are and why you think the links should be included and ask other editors to add them if they believe they aare appropriate. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that my six entries have been deleted across-the-board with the explanation that the material is from my personal website and without any encylcopedic value. Just because the material offered by me was my own work cannot be sufficient reason. Did anyone read what was deleted to see if it was relevant or of value? The editor took the time to consult the Amazon ISBN ranking number to ascertain its value, but did he read it before deleting? The literature about the Holocaust, the Antietam material, the poetry about Butler, Pennsylvania? Had the material not been on my website, might that have made it of encylcopedic value? As regards to a website, I would think the instant availability of a source only enhances its encyclopedic value. Charles 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That editor was me. Yes - the fact that they are links to your own website is reason enough to remove them - see the guidelines I referred you to above.  If your sites were respected resources for the subjects in question regular editors of the articles will have come across them and will be able to add them.  If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, please add content to the articles - don't use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your own point of view by adding links to your own work.  If you truly believe your own work to be encyclopedic for a particular subject, please post the link to the talk page and ask other editors to evaluate its appropriateness for the article.


 * I am cautious about removing links that are valuable to readers, so even though you added these links yourself, I did read them and check what they were about. Since they were your own thoughts on the subjects, and you are not a noted commentator on those subjects, I did not find them to be encyclopedic. self-published or minor works that are not subject to scrutiny are rarely encyclopedic.  In one case - the Butler Pennsylvania article - I could see possible value and I instigated a talk page discussion to see if regular editors on the article (who would be in a position to better know the standing of your work within Butler) thought it was encyclopedic.  In another case other, regular editors of the article thought the link should stay and I replaced it on the page.


 * I don't think this is an unreasonable stand to take. --Siobhan Hansa 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)