User talk:Bunny5000

Welcome

Hello, Bunny5000, and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your contributions so far do not fit our guidelines about what types of external links should be put in articles. Even so, I appreciate your desire to add to the project, and I hope you decide that you would like to contribute in other ways. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! A. Parrot (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Some pages you might like to check out are:

Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia — main welcome page.
Wikipedia:Introduction -- Wikipedia introduction page.
Wikipedia:Tutorial -- Wikipedia editing tutorial.
Wikipedia:Questions — the "where to ask questions" directory.
Wikipedia:FAQ — quick answers to the most common questions.
Wikipedia:New contributors' help page — a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page.
Wikipedia:Help desk — where volunteers answer questions on how to use Wikipedia. Many new users go there for help too.
Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User — where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be his/her mentor.
Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual — Thorough and intuitive guide to Wikipedia.

Senet link

I keep deleting the link on the senet page, and I have repeatedly given a link to the Wikipedia guideline page that explains my reason for doing so. This page, the set of external link guidelines, limits the external links in a Wikipedia article to a usually small number of outside sites that provide "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

Particularly important in this case is the second point on the list of "links normally to be avoided" in the list of external links. There, it says one should generally avoid providing links to "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." The kemetic.org website contains a lot of unverifiable research. It includes elaborate interpretation of the symbolism in Senet, and although much of that interpretation may be based on Egyptological studies, there's no way to tell what is and isn't. The site connects senet with Kabbalah, with chakras, and with Kundalini—concepts that come from religious traditions very different from those of Egypt. And it seems to be claiming that it can "instruct the reader how to become a seer or 'Prophet'". Frankly, this website looks like the product of a modern mystical belief system rather than of scholarly study of senet, even though it includes some scholarly translations of Egyptian texts.

Wikipedia should not promote any particular belief system. If a religious organization is significant enough to merit an article, that article may link to the organization's website (as the article on Kemetic Orthodoxy links to www.kemet.org). But in most other cases, links to websites espousing belief systems fall afoul of the guidelines I've just quoted. The website that you keep linking does not seem to be about a religious organization, just about the beliefs of one person or small group of people. The senet article is not about those beliefs, but about an ancient Egyptian board game. The game had religious meaning, which should be included in its article, but unlike scholarly study of Egyptian beliefs, the mystical speculations of a few non-experts are not a valid topic to link to in a Wikipedia article. A. Parrot (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senet

Please stop adding that external link to the Senet article. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss the adding of the link to the article, please discuss it at Talk:Senet. Right now you are edit warring which will likely get you blocked. Garion96 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that could never happen on the wonderful WP. I reverted his add exactly once, without any attempts to discuss at article or user Talk he opened an ANI case accusing my username of making "persist deletions", no one corrected this, and when I complained about the spuriousness of the ANI and it's inappropriateness for that venue, and made clear the thread should be closed ASAP, and Administrator went to my user Talk and blamed *me* for the continued open status of the ANI, and suggested I was seeking "death by Admin". (Lovely.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]