User talk:Ryanandrew

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, Ryanandrew! And thanks for adding the new link to the Clinical depression article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Ryanandrew, and have fun! Ombudsman 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The articles you've inserted links in are being spammed almost daily with URLs to low-quality sites with lots of ads and non-authoritative information (often without attribution and not written by professionals, even though there are happy people with white coats on the front page). The sites you have linked to are not actually too bad, but please consider this: Wikipedia aims to replace so-called "informational" resources by offering its own digest of the relevant information. In that sense, "external links" should only serve as references, or maximally to elaborate further on the information provided in the article.

Also, the "anxiety disorder" site was linked inappropriately from anxiety rather than anxiety disorder.

Please improve Wikipedia by adding original content rather than simply external links. In the long run, this is much more useful to the reader. JFW | T@lk 08:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto JFW with regard to eczema. Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on why these very helpful links were removed. The site is authored by my mother who is a Pharmacist and medical writer as well as my father who is a Psychiatrist. The site also includes a support forum which is about to be launched. Could you please explain how this is not a useful contribution with unique value to the reader? The content is also unbiased, and there are no ads on my site.

Several people have explained to you that "helpful" is a rather vague term here. The sites, being authored by private individuals, are not authoratitive, not representative, and in that sense only moderately "helpful". Your activity more suggests self- or family-promotion. Forums have their own problems - who guarantees that they are moderated? Perhaps the depression site will be used to exchange suicide methods!

I urge you to contribute original content. Your parents are also invited; their expertise would be very useful in making Wikipedia a useful reference. But stop using Wikipedia to attract traffic to your sites. Please. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sites are not from private individuals, the content is being used in Canada in several health education programs. The information is also well referenced. Compared to the other links that it is next to the materials are very relevant, useful, and of unique value to the reader. As for your suicide comment, the forum has not been launched until we have a full team of trained volunteers from the Medical School where my father is a professor. This is not about promotion of a site that doesn't sell ad space, but about helping people get useful information.

The problem is that this site is new and its credibility is questionable -- we'd like to take your word for it, but we're very conservative when it comes to external links. If we wanted to include every site a person thought useful, we'd be a web directory (which we patently are WP:NOT). As JFW said, you and your parents are still welcome to contribute, and if your website becomes an authoritative source for medical information some day, we'll be glad to have it in. But until then, I'm afraid it just doesn't meet the bar for notability. Johnleemk | Talk 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Despite discouragement from several editors you have proceeded to spam cholesterol, gastroesophageal reflux disease and bipolar disorder. Any further attempts at spamming URLs will be met with a block from editing Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counted with your edits as 24.199.113.69 (talk · contribs), you have now been warned four times. I'm instituting a short block. You are free to contribute when your block expires, but please stop spamming. JFW | T@lk 15:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How than can these sites be considered of adequate quality to be placed on the resources for Wikipedia?

As I will explain on all the talk pages, the sites are not very useful as references, as they are secondary sources of information. Ideally, articles should be based on either medical journal articles or authoratitive surveys, e.g. by patient representative organisations. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial links

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]