Hello, I'm Drchriswilliams. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Clan Brodie have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello – thank you for your message. The clanbrodie.us website is no longer online and all links to it are therefore broken. I’ve gone to some lengths to locate and publish the original family tree files that were linked to so that the links could be fixed here. The fixes that I posted are fully legitimate so could you please leave them intact? Thank you. BrodiePDM (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so. You have added direct links to a file-hosting service. Wikipedia does not accept links to documents that require external applications or plugins to view the content- please have a look at WP:ELNO. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the clanbrodie.us website does not appear to met WP:RS, instead seems to have been WP:RSSELF. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your comment about clanbrodie.us not appearing to be a reliable source, under the circumstances I do not agree because the website was posted with the explicit approval of the current Chief of the Brodie Clan. And the information on the Brodie family Branches that was hosted there was published by the current Chief of the Brodie Clan who is an authoritative source on the family, and he published them based on information contained in the Brodie family archives held at Brodie Castle, and other published sources. Sources on the Brodie Clan family Branches do not get more reliable than that, and a reasonable reliable sources policy would recognize that. I was just trying to fix the broken links to make the content available again. BrodiePDM (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, then if Google Drive links are considered unacceptable, then the warning that Wikipedia gave me when I tried to publish the updates should not have included: “If you have checked the source and are confident it is appropriate and reliable, please click 'Publish changes' again.” because that led me to believe that they were ok to publish since I had honestly “checked the source and (was) confident it is appropriate and reliable”. Here is the warning that Wikipedia gave:
- <<
- An automated filter has identified this edit as containing references to one of the following blogging / web host platforms: Angelfire, Blogger (including blogspot.com), Geocities, Google Drive, Livejournal, Rootsweb, WordPress.com. Please be aware that self-published sources rarely meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. They may be used only with caution and for non-controversial material where the blog or website is owned by the subject of the article (see WP:ABOUTSELF). Best practice is to discuss this on the Talk page first.
- If you are the owner of the site or blog, please note that Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion and use of the project for promotion is forbidden and can lead to loss of editing privileges and blacklisting of your site. Note also that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, so additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings.
- If you have checked the source and are confident it is appropriate and reliable, please click 'Publish changes' again. If you were not adding a blog or web host, please report this error.
- >> BrodiePDM (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
