User talk:Sabisue

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Acquired brain injury has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'groups\.yahoo\.com' (link(s): http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/survivoracquiredbraininjury) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Newsaholic (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Survivor Acquired Brain Injury

I have nominated Survivor Acquired Brain Injury, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Acquired Brain Injury. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC) KurtRaschke (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to skull fracture. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK. I carefully selected topics relevant to the Brain Injury Network to put the link in (skull fracture, coma, concussion, stroke, neurology, disability). They are all reverted, I see. It was not done by spam bot. I do think that the Brain Injury Network should be listed at least in one spot in Wikipedia. Do you have a suggestion as to where this could be? However, I do not think I ought to try anything at all at Wikipedia anymore. If editors who control Wikipedia looked at Brain Injury Network and the Brain Injury Directory, they might see there is a lot of information there and they are both good resources for the brain injury community. Maybe someone would like to write an article entitled "brain injury community"? Incidentally, the link to Brain Injury Network is not the same thing as the Survivor Acquired Brain Injury attempted article. That was a different thing, already nixed at Wikipedia. I hope that editors will, in their talks in the future, consider listing Brain Injury Network somewhere in Wikipedia. And, I hope someone will list it, because I will, in accordance with the warning above, no longer try to. Thank you from sabisue. --Sabisue (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I mis-read the initial warnings you recieved, you should only get a level two warning instead of a four (I've replaced accordingly). But irrespecitve, your contribution history shows you added the same link to about 10 pages. That's spamming. In addition, you are adding an advocacy site, when our external links guidelines and medical manual of style both prohibit such sites (WP:ELNO #10 and MEDMOS #2 respectively). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and the links do not contain the relevant encyclopedic content that would justify adding the links to that number of pages. In all cases I believe I replaced the external links section with links to the DMOZ. You may want to go to that site and suggest the inclusion of the link on the relevant pages. We are not here to support a community, and it is extremely unlikely to ever be included as a link unless the network itself ever has a wikipedia page (and before creating the page, I would suggest you review notability guidelines for organizations to once again avoid deletion). Based on your contributions to the SABI deletion discussion, you may also want to review WP:TLDR. Wikipedia editors have to deal with hundreds of deletion discussions on a monthly basis and don't like to bother reading comments from editors who dump large volumes of text on the page, particularly when it is obvious they are not familiar with the deletion policy, arguments to avoid and the notability guidelines. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Sabisue, perhaps you aren't familiar with WP:LINKSPAM, WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Please take the time to read them before continuing. The point of the "References" section in an article is to support the statements made in the text of the article. A "Further reading" section may list material that will be useful to editors in sourcing new text relevant to the article, but it should still meet the standards of reliable sources and verifiability, and once it is actually used, it should move from "Further reading" to a cited "Reference". I'd suggest for the time being that you discuss adding sources on the relevant article's talk page

where you can persuade editors that the source has merit in supporting the article (not in supporting a cause). Cheers,LeadSongDog (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]