What is "inappropriate" in this link ? Why are you removing it ? Do you have a sufficient background to make this judgment ? Actions like that will result in Wikipedia loosing its credibility as a source of good / diverse information and points of view ....
My background isn't in question. Your link is. We prevent links to preserve Wikipedia's credibility. I removed your link because of WP:EL; specifically, "Links should be kept to a minimum." To get your link accepted you will have to convince editors of its notability on the Talk:Cancer page. Why is your link more apropriate than the myriad other links that have been removed from this page?
Until you can convince us of that, your actions of adding the link back aren't helping your case. You are acting like a spammer. Avoid these tactics to maintain your own credibility. Instead, read the guidelines at WP:EL and WP:SPAM, gather a case, post it to the talk page, and you link may be welcome! "Good diverse information" is welcome at Wikipedia, but you must respect our guidelines. --Mdwyer22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability and background is in question since I am not a spammer and information provided in the paper is very important for researchers in the field and for the patients, since it can save many lives. Your actions undermine credibility of your function and credibility of Wikipedia.
My actions protect the function of Wikipedia. I'd like to introduce you to two more rules. WP:AGF means assume good faith. Your actions label you as a spammer, no matter what you say. However, because of WP:AGF I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I believe you can contribute positively to Wikipedia. I'm trying to direct you to resources that will help you add your information correctly. If you cannot appreciate this, this is your loss.
The next guideline is WP:NPA which means no personal attacks. I don't need credibility. Neither do you. Your link needs credibility; or actually notability. We're not attacking you. So lets not talk about my ability and background. --Mdwyer02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-3rr1 added after third time I reverted on 2 February
By the way, I am under the three-revert rule, as well. If you add your link back one more time, I will not be able to remove it. --Mdwyer22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions are harmful to Wikipedia and people who have cancer and look for the most relevant and current information. I provide in my paper this kind of information. Maybe you should read it yourself ? I am surprised that you have no problem with 4 links to American Cancer Society which collects donations and has outdated and misleading information on cancer (for example fact that there is no link between hydrogenated fats and cancer). I think that you should explain your actions. I wonder who's interests are you representing ? Certainly not Wikipedia's, not patients', not honest researchers' ....
This is your paper? Then I was even more justified in removing your link. Wikipedia forbids original research -- see WP:OR. In addition, you'd be breaking the conflict of interest clause in WP:EL.
Why did you remove my links from several pages at Wikipedia ? Who are you to judge that this is a spam ? You can spend time better studying some more so one day you will have something creative to say or to contribute. At this moment you are just a highschool kid ....
Attack ??? I was attacked by several people, including you. I am simply commenting on the credentials of people who are involved. This should be called "quality control", required in any good encyclopedia.
You have again failed to understand how Wikipedia works. Quality is not ensured by the credentials of the editors, but by yet another rule: WP:V or Verifiability. The credentials of individual editors is not questioned; a farmer can edit articles about particle physics, so long as that farmer cites reliable sources. I call your attention again to WP:NPA which states Comment on content, not on the contributor.Mdwyer20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started to comment on editors, since your edits did not make any logical sense. Links which I posted are not a spam, but provide very useful information on the topics. As an expert in these areas, I can say that they were very useful in my judgment. On the other hand they were edited out by non-experts and for wrong reasons. So something is very, very wrong at Wikipedia. Any information / edits should be based on the merit not some lame excuses .... May I have proper response to my questions/requests and clear and logical answer ???
Our edits were perfectly logical and followed all the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Your actions have been flagrant violations of the same rules. Your judgement "as an expert" means very little to us, because we don't know anything about you. This is the nature of the internet at large, let alone Wikipedia. How do you know I am not an expert in malignant neoplasms? It is entirely possible that I'm actually a hyper-intelligent chicken. In any case it doesn't matter because that's not the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia demands credibility of information -- not credibility of person.
Your link was removed because I (we) felt it was not notable as per WP:EL. Instead of asserting the notability of the link to Wikipedia standards, you instead just kept adding it back, in contravention of WP:SPAM. When I tried to show you how to defend your link correctly you instead turned on me and other editors in contravention of WP:NPA.
I don't know how to be any more logical and clear. If you cannot understand and agree with the most basic of wikipedia principles, then you're not going to be welcome to edit, here. I am giving you every chance and every resource you need. Don't make me regret it. Mdwyer23:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets us take for example a link: "Cancer - A Biophysicist's Point of View" - new research linking cancer to entropy
What kind of a problem is with WP:EL ? Please explain.
What kind of a problem is with WP:SPAM ? Link was added, since it was removed with no explanation or it was done unjustly. I would like this link to be added. Please tell me reasons why it should not be added.
What kind of a problem is with WP:NPA ? So it means that you can do improper things and I can't question qualifications of those who make judgment ? This is not an "attack" but simply statement of the facts in this case. What bothers me is that I see examples of clear violations of your "rules" and this seems to be OK. Yet links provided by me did "violate them" despite the fact that they did not in my opinion. Why those decisions are not made in the open forum, where you will honestly state the facts and where all people will be able to comment if information is correct and appropriate or not.
I felt the link was not notable. Perhaps I have been remiss in not giving you this link, as well: WP:NOTABLE This was purely a judgement call. Any editor can make that call. Sometimes we're wrong. When that happens, it is the editor's responsibility to assert notability before the link can be added back. You did not avail yourself of this opportunities. Which brings us to the next response:
Instead of discussing your link and asserting its notability, you instead just put it back — numerous times. After being warned about it — numerous times. Here I have to admit to a mistake, though. I called these the actions of a spammer. Technically, these are the actions of a vandal. Make note of the section that reads Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism. Once again, you broke our rules, and we acted to protect them. By this point, we are no longer judging the content of the link. We're judging the actions of the editor -- you, in this case.
You can question my actions, but you cannot question my qualifications. Content must be justified with verifiable citations, and actions are justified by rules. People? Well, they're just anonymous people.
How is our discussion not open? This discussion we're having right now is out where EVERYONE can see it. Wikipedia is a community. You'll note that at least three people have reverted your links aside from me. You might also note that the history of the Cancer article goes back to November of 2001. Any external link you see today is the product of more than five years of open discussions. There have been thousands of edits made to this article. You aren't the first person to have their link denied. You will not be the last.
About the ACS link: It is allowed by WP:EL in the part that reads, Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. There is also a note in WP:SPAM that says Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another.
I hope these explanations go a long way towards answering your questions and helping you become an active contributor to Wikipedia. You mentioned earlier about the link to shareware software on Audiometer. Yes, that probably is against WP:EL and under the strictest reading of WP:EL it should be removed. I'm more lenient, so I'm leaving it there. On the other hand, if someone else removed it, and put something in the edit summary about "Removing commercial software as per WP:EL" I wouldn't contest its removal. In fact, the user who added the link to Audiometer also added a link to the Pink noise article for different Windows software that is equally questionable. One more link for the evening: WP:BOLD Good luck! Mdwyer07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
